Gemmo Impianti SpA, B-290427.2, March 12, 2003

B-290427.2 Mar 12, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The agency reasonably found past performance on contracts involving similar janitorial services more relevant than past performance on multi-service contracts where little or no janitorial services were involved. 2. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. The RFP stated that the three technical factors were of equal importance to each other. That the combined technical factors were approximately equal in importance to price. The price evaluation was to include a review of the proposed prices for realism and unbalanced pricing. This is Gemmo's second protest of the award to Penauille Italia under this RFP. /2/ We sustained Gemmo's prior protest because the agency's evaluation under at least two of three technical factors. View Decision Gemmo Impianti SpA, B-290427.2, March 12, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Gemmo Impianti SpA protests the award of a contract to Penauille Italia SpA under request for proposals (RFP) No. N33191-02-R-0402, issued by the Department of the Navy, Resident Officer in Charge of Construction Southern Italy, for various services at the Naval Support Activity, Naples, Italy. Gemmo protests the agency's evaluation and source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract for a 9-month base period with 1 option year /1/ for the following services: janitorial, grounds maintenance, refuse collection and disposal, inspection/cleaning of sewer/drain systems, replacement of air filters for air conditioning systems, and service calls. The RFP included contract line item numbers (CLIN) and sub-CLINs for regular and emergency services, e.g., basic janitorial services (which the RFP referred to as fixed-price CLINs), and a separate CLIN (and corresponding option CLIN) with sub-CLINs for other services to be ordered on an as-needed basis, e.g., additional sweeping (which the RFP referred to as the indefinite-quantity CLIN). Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, considering price and three technical factors--past performance, corporate capability and quality control. The corporate capability factors had three equally weighted subfactors--performance plan, staffing plan, and organizational chart. The RFP stated that the three technical factors were of equal importance to each other, and that the combined technical factors were approximately equal in importance to price. The price evaluation was to include a review of the proposed prices for realism and unbalanced pricing. This is Gemmo's second protest of the award to Penauille Italia under this RFP. /2/ We sustained Gemmo's prior protest because the agency's evaluation under at least two of three technical factors--past performance and quality control--was unreasonable, as was the agency's evaluation of the relative price difference between the proposals, and thus the agency's resulting cost/technical tradeoff analysis was defective. Gemmo Impianti SpA, B-290427, Aug. 9, 2002, 2002 CPD Para. 146. Following that decision, the agency established a new technical evaluation board (TEB) and source selection board (SSB) to reevaluate the proposals that had been included in the competitive range. The new TEB determined that all of the proposals were unacceptable but capable of being made acceptable, and recommended that discussions be conducted. Agency Report, Tab 2, TEB Report, Sept. 30, 2002, at 1. The agency did not replace the price evaluation board (PEB) following the first protest. The PEB did not reevaluate the previously proposed prices; it resubmitted its prior reports to the new contracting officer, SSB and source selection authority (SSA). Agency Report, Tab 3, Memo from PEB to Contracting Officer and SSA (Sept. 25, 2002). The prior PEB report analyzed the proposal prices by CLIN, determined that Penauille Italia's prices were unbalanced between the "fixed-price" and "indefinite-quantity" CLINs, and stated that the agency should examine the risk that the offeror may make up losses from the "fixed-priced" work through high unit costs for the "indefinite-quantity" work. Agency Report, Tab 3, PEB Report, Mar. 18, 2002, at 8-9. The initial report of the new SSB summarized the CLIN-by-CLIN analysis in the PEB report, although it did not identify the PEB's determination of price unbalancing. Agency Report, Tab 4, SSB Report, Oct. 10, 2002, at 14-15. The SSB recommended, and the SSA approved, a revised competitive range consisting of Gemmo's and Penauille Italia's proposals. Id. at 16-17. The agency conducted written discussions with these offerors, and requested and received proposal revisions. Both the TEB and the PEB evaluated the revised proposals. The final evaluation results were as follows: . Gemmo Penauille Italia Past Performance Acceptable Superior Corporate Capability Acceptable + Acceptable . Performance Plan Acceptable + Acceptable + . Staffing Plan Acceptable Acceptable .