Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter; Malerbetrieb Anastassios

Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter; Malerbetrieb Anastassios TITLE: Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter; Malerbetrieb Anastassios BNUMBER: B-290317.3;B-290317.4; B-290317.5; B-290317.6 DATE: July 16, 2002 ********************************************************************** Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter; Malerbetrieb Anastassios, B-290317.3; B-290317.4; B-290317.5; B-290317.6, July 16, 2002 Decision Matter of: Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter; Malerbetrieb Anastassios Georgiadis File: B-290317.3; B-290317.4; B-290317.5; B-290317.6 Date: July 16, 2002 Reed L. von Maur, Esq., for the protesters. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Richard L. Hatfield, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposal under business management and past performance factors is denied where record shows proposal was downgraded because it did not include information required by the solicitation. 2. Fact that agency found protester's quality control plan acceptable under prior solicitation does not establish that downgrading of same plan under current solicitation was unreasonable, since each solicitation stands on its own, and protester does not challenge agency's conclusion that plan was lacking in detail. 3. Supplemental protest based on information obtained from agency report is dismissed as untimely where the information would have been provided during debriefing held with protester, but protester terminated the debriefing without allowing the agency to fully discuss the inadequacies in its proposal. DECISION Franz Rubenbauer Raumausstatter and Malerbetrieb Anastassios Georgiadis protest the award of a contract to Frank GmbH, Suebersdorf, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAJA16-02-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for cleaning, painting and repairs to flooring in employee housing in Vilseck, Germany. Rubenbauer and Anastassios protest the evaluations of their respective proposals. We deny the protests. The solicitation provided for a "best value" evaluation, with paramount consideration given to technical/management capability factors--(in descending order of importance) past performance, business management/organizational structure (with several subfactors) and quality control--and performance risk, rather than price. RFP �� GFN-215-4000 (a)(b), GFN-215-4006. The agency intended to make award without holding discussions. RFP � GFN-215-4005. Five proposals, including the protesters' and the awardee's, were received and evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). Georgiadis's proposal was rated marginal for past performance, unsatisfactory for business/management, and marginal-minus for quality control--resulting in an overall unsatisfactory rating for the technical/management capability factors--and also was rated very high performance risk. SSEB Evaluation at 2. Rubenbauer's proposal was rated marginal for past performance, satisfactory-marginal for business/management, and satisfactory?marginal for quality control--for an overall marginal rating for the technical/management capability factors--and was rated very high performance risk. Id. The protesters' low ratings were based on the agency's finding that their proposals lacked sufficient detail. Rubenbauer's and Georgiadis's prices were the lowest and second lowest, respectively. The contracting officer made an assessment of the evaluations based on the information from the SSEB, as well as an independent evaluation, and determined that the findings and ratings of the SSEB were accurate. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 7. The contracting officer performed an award analysis and determined that Frank provided the "best value"; it thus made award to Frank. Following notice of the award, both Georgiadis and Rubenbauer requested and received debriefings, which they each terminated before the Army finished with its review of their proposals. COS at 11. These protests followed the aborted debriefings. Georgiadis and Rubenbauer challenge the evaluations of their proposals on several grounds. In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, we will consider whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the stated evaluation factors and applicable statutes and regulations. Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, B?285394.2 et al., Dec. 1, 2000, 2001 CPD � 97 at 5.