Moreland Corporation, B-291086, October 8, 2002

B-291086 Oct 08, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced proposal for the construction and lease of an outpatient clinic from the competitive range was reasonable where the protester failed to address material concerns identified by the agency in its revised proposal. Delivery of space was required by November 30. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The following evaluation factors were set forth in descending order of importance: (1) technical quality. Price evaluation was to be based on the annual price per net usable square foot. Were equal to price. Oral discussions were conducted with each competitive range offeror. Moreland was advised that the funds proposed for the required lessor funded account for maintenance. View Decision Moreland Corporation, B-291086, October 8, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Moreland Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and award of a contract to William J. Brant & Associates under solicitation for offers (SFO) No. V101-183R-629-006-01, issued by the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) for the design, construction and lease of an outpatient clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. We deny the protest. The SFO, issued October 29, 2001, requested cost proposals for a 15-year lease with one 5-year renewal option. SFO Para. 1.4. Delivery of space was required by November 30, 2003. SFO Para. 1.6. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. SFO, Cover Letter, Oct. 29, 2001. The following evaluation factors were set forth in descending order of importance: (1) technical quality, including the quality of the building, the design concept and the quality of the site; (2) the adequacy and efficiency of the proposed operations and maintenance plans; and (3) the offeror's qualifications, including past performance. SFO Para. 2.2. Price evaluation was to be based on the annual price per net usable square foot, including any option periods. Technical factors, when combined, were equal to price. Five offerors, including Moreland and Brant, submitted fourteen different proposals and alternate proposals. Based on initial evaluation by the technical evaluation board (TEB) and a price analysis of offers, the contracting officer included all proposals in the competitive range. Oral discussions were conducted with each competitive range offeror. On February 28, 2001, during oral discussions, among other things, Moreland was advised that the funds proposed for the required lessor funded account for maintenance, capital repair and replacement were insufficient based on the government's cost estimates to maintain and/or replace building systems in a building this size. Moreland was further advised that funds specified in its cost proposal for operating expenses were insufficient to maintain a building of this size. The agency also discussed the adequacy and efficiency of Moreland's operation and maintenance plan. For example, the agency asked Moreland how it would manage the property and whether Moreland, located in California, proposed to have a local firm in the Baton Rouge area designated as the property manager or whether the firm would act as the property manager. Moreland advised the agency that local service contractors would be hired to perform maintenance as required by the SFO, but that it would manage the property through its main office in California, and, when the main office was closed, an answering service would be used. Subsequent to the February 28 oral discussions, on March 6, the agency sent Moreland an e-mail advising of the agency's concerns with respect to Moreland's low annual cost for operating expenses and its low maintenance account. Additionally, the agency requested: [E]xplain in detail how you will maintain the facility per [the SFO requirements], especially the items to be done twice a week, if you do not have a local, designated maintenance person. Explain if you will have local contracts in place to perform maintenance and repair work and the process the clinic will have to go through in order to get service. Explain how phone calls to your office 3 thousand miles away with a 3-hour time difference will allow one hour response times for emergencies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Will local contracts be in place at the time of occupancy and will the clinic be given the names and phone numbers of the local contractors to call directly. We would want the flexibility to do this in emergencies, and cannot see how it can be accomplished with the present property management plan. Exh. 38, e-mail to Steve Moreland, March 6, 2002. Final proposal revisions were requested on March 7, 2002, and proposal revisions were received on March 25. Moreland's revised offer increased the funds in the maintenance account.