EAA Capital Company, L.L.C., B-287460, June 19, 2001

B-287460 Jun 19, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST An agency determination to exclude proposal from the competitive range is unobjectionable where agency concluded. On the basis of evaluation which was reasonable and consistent with solicitation evaluation criteria. These technical reviews are for the purpose of determining "the accuracy and the quality of the closing documents. The RFP stated that technical factors were more important than price. "management and oversight capability" and " technical understanding" were equally important. Each of these factors was worth a maximum of 30 points and was slightly more important than the remaining technical factors. " each of which was worth a maximum of 20 points. EAA was one of nine firms which submitted timely proposals by the January 8. View Decision Matter of: EAA Capital Company, L.L.C. File: B-287460 Date: June 19, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION EAA Capital Company, L.L.C. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-ATL-01629, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for services in connection with home mortgage loans which originated at the Single Family Homeownership Center (HOC) located in Atlanta, Georgia. EAA contends that HUD failed to evaluate its proposal according to the terms of the solicitation and thereby improperly excluded EAA's proposal from the competitive range. We deny the protest. On December 7, 2000, HUD issued this RFP to obtain one or more contractors to perform post endorsement technical reviews to be conducted for two geographic areas under the jurisdiction of the Atlanta HOC. These technical reviews are for the purpose of determining "the accuracy and the quality of the closing documents, the mortgage credit documentation/underwriting as well as to identify the degree of risk, if any, present in each case file insured." RFP at C.3(a). The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-priced line items for a base year and four 1-year options. The RFP stated that technical factors were more important than price; and that, among the technical factors, "management and oversight capability" and " technical understanding" were equally important; each of these factors was worth a maximum of 30 points and was slightly more important than the remaining technical factors, "prior experience" and "past performance," each of which was worth a maximum of 20 points. Additionally, the RFP provided that if an offeror received an unacceptable rating under the prior experience or management & oversight capability factors, "the entire proposal may be rated as technically unacceptable and may not be evaluated further." RFP Sec. M.2. EAA was one of nine firms which submitted timely proposals by the January 8, 2001 closing date. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) individually scored all nine proposals, and then the panel arrived at consensus scores for each proposal. The consensus scores assigned to the nine proposals ranged from a low of 22 to a high of 73 out of the 100 points available. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Technical Evaluation Memorandum. Eight of the nine proposals, including EAA's with an assigned score of 37, were viewed as technically unacceptable by the TEP. As relevant here, the agency found numerous weaknesses and deficiencies in EAA's technical proposal and concluded that EAA's proposal was unacceptable. Under the first technical evaluation factor, "management and oversight capability," the RFP required that an offeror provide adequate information to demonstrate the ability to manage and oversee the work to be performed for each geographic area proposed to ensure quality of performance. RFP Sec. M.5(a). The RFP stated that sufficient evidence included at a minimum: an acceptable quality control plan, acceptable evidence of a plan to handle conflicting and/or multiple use of resources if employees or subcontractors will be used on other contracts, and an acceptable plan for identifying and managing cases where any organizational or individual conflict of interest might be identified. Id. EAA received only 8 out of a possible 30 points for this factor. The TEP found that EAA did not provide a production control plan to deal with workload conflicts or to address how deadlines would be met in the case of business interruptions. AR, Tab 11, EAA Evaluation. The TEP viewed EAA's plan for handling conflicts of interest as weak because it contained no plan of action for how an employee would identify what constitutes a conflict and the measures to be taken by EAA if the policy was not followed.