U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029; B-293029.2, January 16, 2004

U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029; B-293029.2, January 16, 2004 TITLE: U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029; B-293029.2, January 16, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293029; B-293029.2 DATE: January 16, 2004 ********************************************************************** U.S. Facilities, Inc., B-293029; B-293029.2, January 16, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: U.S. Facilities, Inc. File: B-293029; B-293029.2 Date: January 16, 2004 William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Phillip H. Harrington, Esq., Janet L. Eichers, Esq., and Derek A. Yeo, Esq., Wiley Rein & Fielding, for the protester. Peter F. Marvin, Esq., and Justin K. Miller, Esq., Marvin, Larsson, Henkin & Scheuritzel, for Elliott-Lewis Corporation, an intervenor. Kimberly Y. Nash, Esq., and Bruce M. Kasson, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protester*s contention that the agency should have rejected, or downgraded, the awardee*s proposal for its failure to offer a project manager who would be available during performance is denied where the record shows that the awardee disclosed during negotiations that the project manager identified in its initial proposal had been promoted and would eventually be unavailable to serve as offered, and shows that, after discussion with the agency, the awardee promised in its final revised proposal that, if it were selected for award, the project manager would serve as offered until completion of the transition phase of the contract, and until a replacement suitable to both parties could be found. 2. Even when there is no requirement in a solicitation to obtain commitments from non-key incumbent personnel, an agency reasonably may favorably evaluate an offeror*s stated intent to retain as many of the non‑key incumbent employees as possible. 3. Protester*s contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated different approaches in the offerors* price proposals is denied where the record shows that the solicitation contained a patent ambiguity that neither offeror raised prior to submission of its proposal, and where both offerors took affirmative and reasonable steps to clearly explain their approach to the ambiguity. 4. Protester*s assertion that it should have received a higher past performance rating, and the awardee a lower one, based in part on the protester*s performance of the incumbent contract for the previous 5 years, is denied where the record shows that the agency credited the protester for its performance as the incumbent, but reasonably placed greater value on certain experiences the awardee presented in its proposal. 5. Protester*s allegation that the agency held improper discussions with only the awardee after submission of final revised proposals is denied where the record shows that the contracting officer appropriately sought confirmation of the awardee*s prices, or a request to correct a mistake, but did not invite the awardee to modify or revise its proposal. 6. A source selection official*s adoption of an evaluation panel*s findings and recommendation for award does not, without more, provide evidence that the selection official abdicated his responsibility to make independent judgments; protester*s assertion that he did so is denied where the record shows that the selection official was clearly involved in the procurement from its outset to its conclusion. DECISION U.S. Facilities, Inc. (USF) protests the award of a contract to Elliott-Lewis Corporation (ELC), by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22360, for facility management services at HUD*s headquarters building in downtown Washington, D.C. USF argues that HUD*s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable in several ways, that HUD improperly held discussions only with ELC after both offerors had submitted final revised proposals, and that the source selection official failed to make an independent selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here was issued on December 20, 2002, to procure, on a consolidated basis, all management, supervision, labor, materials, supplies, repair parts, tools, and equipment needed for facilities management services for HUD*s headquarter*s building for a base period of 1 year, followed by up to four 1-year options. RFP at I‑C-1, F-2. The solicitation identified eight types of services covered by the RFP.