Nevada Real Estate Services, Inc., B-293105, February 3, 2004

B-293105 Feb 03, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Denver HOC is divided into six areas and the Santa Ana HOC is divided into five. Proposals were to include two separate volumes. Offerors were required to submit a hard copy and a CD-ROM copy of their proposals. Also were to upload an electronic copy to a specified website. If any of the three required submissions were untimely. Pointing to a signed receipt from HUD as evidence that its offer was acceptable. Show that those copies are of a proposal belonging to a company named Lawyer's Trust. NRE has submitted to our Office "complete copies of [its] proposals both in hard copy and in CD-ROM format" that it alleges "were originally submitted to HUD in a timely manner . . . . The protest is without merit. View Decision Nevada Real Estate Services, Inc., B-293105, February 3, 2004 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Nevada Real Estate Services, Inc. (NRE) protests the rejection of its proposals under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for management and marketing (M&M) services for single-family properties. HUD rejected NRE's proposals for failure to include complete business proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on August 6, 2003, contemplated the award of 24 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for M&M services in 24 geographic areas, for a base year, with four 1-year options. Offerors could submit proposals for one or more geographic areas. Each geographic area falls under one of four regional Home Ownership Centers (HOC) based in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, and Santa Ana, California. The Denver HOC is divided into six areas and the Santa Ana HOC is divided into five. NRE's protest concerns Area 1 of the Denver HOC, and Area 4 of the Santa Ana HOC. Proposals were to include two separate volumes--a technical/management proposal describing the firm's organization and management, and a business proposal that included Standard Form 33 (the solicitation cover sheet), completed representations and certifications, price evaluation worksheets and contract line item number (CLIN) price sheets, and past performance evaluation surveys. Award would be on a "best value" basis, with technical factors being significantly more important than price. Offerors were required to submit a hard copy and a CD-ROM copy of their proposals, and also were to upload an electronic copy to a specified website, by 4 p.m. on September 5. Proposals received after that time would be considered late and not be evaluated. If any of the three required submissions were untimely, the hard copy of the proposal would take precedence. /1/ On September 5, NRE submitted proposals for two areas--Denver Area 1 and Santa Ana Area 4--through its agent, The Preferred Company. The Preferred Company hand-delivered to the agency, at 3:50 p.m., four boxes containing the hard copies and CD-ROM copies of NRE's proposals (as well as the proposals of two other offerors), and uploaded an electronic copy of NRE's Santa Ana proposal at 3:19 p.m., and its Denver proposal at 3:20 p.m. AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 3. On September 8, two contract specialists unpacked the hard copies of NRE's proposals, and determined that neither contained a business proposal. A third contract specialist confirmed these determinations on September 22. Thereafter, on October 8, a contract specialist discovered that the uploaded versions of NRE's business volumes did not include any prices on the CLIN price sheets, or any other pricing information. Id. at 4. The contracting officer again reviewed the hard copies and CD-ROM versions of NRE's proposals, and confirmed that these versions also did not contain complete business proposals, and that neither version included any pricing information. Id. By letter dated October 16, HUD notified NRE that its proposals did not contain the required business proposal in the hard copy, CD-ROM, or uploaded versions, and that its proposals therefore would not be considered for award. Id. The protester maintains that it did submit business proposals by the September 5 deadline, pointing to a signed receipt from HUD as evidence that its offer was acceptable. NRE further contends that references in the uploaded copies of its proposals--which HUD provided to our Office as part of its report--show that those copies are of a proposal belonging to a company named Lawyer's Trust. Comments at 2. NRE has submitted to our Office "complete copies of [its] proposals both in hard copy and in CD-ROM format" that it alleges "were originally submitted to HUD in a timely manner . . . ," Id. at 1, and asserts that HUD should allow it "to re-enter the competition and be considered for award . . . ." Id. at 3. The protest is without merit.