DWMS-Ameriko, B-287680, August 9, 2001

B-287680 Aug 09, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's allegation that awardee's price is so low as to indicate an inadequate level of staffing for hospital cleaning services is denied where the record shows that the agency properly concluded that awardee's price was reasonable through comparison with the government estimate and other offerors' prices. Awardee's proposed level of staffing in fact is virtually identical to protester's. Were technical/oral presentation. The SSA noted that Aztec's technical rating was higher than the protester's. While its price was 16 percent lower. DWMS-Ameriko argued that Aztec's price was so low that it was apparent that Aztec had not proposed a level of staffing adequate to meet the requirements of the solicitation. View Decision DWMS-Ameriko, B-287680, August 9, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION DWMS-Ameriko, a joint venture between Dan White's Maintenance Service and Ameriko, Inc., protests the award of a contract to any other offeror under request for proposals (RFP) No. DADA13-00-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for hospital housecleaning services at Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base period of 1 year and 4 option years. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror submitting the most advantageous proposal. Factors to be considered in the selection process, listed in descending order of importance, were technical/oral presentation, /1/ past performance, and price. /2/ The RFP notified offerors that the agency intended to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. RFP Sec. M.1.1. Six offerors submitted proposals by the November 21, 2000 closing date. The evaluators rated the proposals as follows: Offeror Technical Proposal Performance Past Evaluated Merit Risk Risk Performance Price (Point Score) Aztec Excellent Low Low Very Good $20,875,106 Facility (946.22) Services Offeror A Excellent Medium Medium Low Exceptional $17,384,816 (918) Low to to Low Low DWMS- Excellent Low Low Satisfactory $24,952,121 Ameriko (915) Offeror B Excellent Low Medium Low Exceptional $20,205,611 (914) to Low Offeror C Good Medium High Very Good $16,557,236 (809) Offeror D Marginal High High Satisfactory $15,776,543 (675) The Source Selection Authority (SSA) determined that Aztec's proposal represented the best value to the government. In comparing Aztec's proposal with DWMS-Ameriko's, the SSA noted that Aztec's technical rating was higher than the protester's, while its price was 16 percent lower. Source Selection Decision Document, Apr. 9, 2001, at 6. On April 23, the contracting officer awarded a contract to Aztec. In its initial protest, DWMS-Ameriko argued that Aztec's price was so low that it was apparent that Aztec had not proposed a level of staffing adequate to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The protester subsequently extended the arguments that it had raised with regard to Aztec to Offeror B, the offeror identified by the agency as next in line for award after Aztec. The agency responded to the protester's argument by noting that Aztec had proposed a level of housekeeper staffing ([deleted] full-time equivalents (FTE)) virtually identical to the level proposed by the protester ([deleted] FTEs), and that Offeror B had proposed a higher level of housekeeper staffing ([deleted] FTEs) than the protester. Agency report at 8. The agency further noted that based on a comparison of offerors' prices with one another and with the government estimate, two of the price analysis techniques provided for in Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 15.404-1(b)(2), it had determined that Aztec's and Offeror B's prices were reasonable, DWMS-Ameriko's price was too high, and Offeror A's price was too low. In commenting on the agency report, the protester did not take issue with or attempt to rebut the agency position that both Aztec and Offeror B had proposed adequate levels of staffing; accordingly, we consider it to have abandoned this argument. O. Ames Co., B-283943, Jan. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 20 at 7. The protester did take issue with the agency's contention that it properly had established the reasonableness of Aztec's and Offeror B's prices through comparison with the government estimate, however, maintaining that the government estimate was outdated. The protester also argued that Aztec's general and administrative (G&A) and profit rates /3/ were extraordinarily low and posed a risk to successful performance. The agency responded to the protester's argument regarding the currency of its estimate by noting that although its initial estimate had been developed in February 1998, approximately 2 years prior to issuance of the solicitation, the estimate had been updated twice during the procurement process.