First Preston Housing Initiatives, LP, B-293105.2, October 15, 2004

B-293105.2 Oct 15, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights First Preston Housing Initiatives, LP protests the award of a contract to Michaelson, Connor & Boul, Inc. (MCB) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain management and marketing services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes and other property owned by HUD. First Preston maintains that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and improperly misevaluated proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293105.2, First Preston Housing Initiatives, LP, October 15, 2004 Decision Matter of: First Preston Housing Initiatives, LP File: B-293105.2 Date: October 15, 2004 J. Alex Ward, Esq., Kali N. Bracey, Esq., and Ayodele T. Carroo, Esq., Jenner & Block, for the protester. Margaret A. Dillenburg, Esq., for Michaelson, Connor & Boul, Inc., an intervenor. Carolyn Fiume, Esq., and Rachael Blackburn, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misled protester into raising its prices during discussions is denied where record shows that, while agency provided guidance regarding proposed pricing, protesters pricing revisions were based on its own business judgment. 2. In evaluating proposals, agency was not required to consider differences among offerors proposed pricing structures, since solicitation did not provide for such an analysis. 3. Protest that agency misevaluated one aspect of the protesters proposal is denied where the unambiguous language of the proposal supports agencys evaluation conclusion. DECISION First Preston Housing Initiatives, LP protests the award of a contract to Michaelson, Connor & Boul, Inc. (MCB) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain management and marketing services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes and other property owned by HUD. First Preston maintains that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and improperly misevaluated proposals. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed-unit-price contracts in 24 geographic regions for management and marketing services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes owned by, or in the custody of, HUD. At issue in this protest is the contract for the Denver Area 1, which covers properties located in Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. [1] The RFP advised offerors that the agency would make award on a best value basis, considering both price and non-price factors, with the non-price factors considered significantly more important than price. For the non-price considerations, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated using six criteria (in descending order of importance): management capability and quality of proposed management plan, past performance, prior experience, proposed key personnel, subcontract management, and small business subcontracting participation. Offerors were required to submit unit prices (expressed as a lump-sum fee, but payable in four equal monthly installments) for their property management fee and their vacant lot management fee (contract line item numbers (CLIN) 0001 and 0002); a price for the firms marketing fee (expressed as a percentage of the net sale price of a single-family home) (CLIN 0003); a monthly fee for maintenance of held off market properties, that is, properties which, due to unusual circumstances, are not being marketed by the contractor (CLIN 0004); and a monthly fee for maintenance of properties not owned, but held in custody, by HUD (CLIN 0005). For purposes of calculating the offerors total evaluated prices, fixed unit prices were to be multiplied by the estimated quantities included in the solicitation. [2] Prices also were to be evaluated for reasonableness. The agency received numerous proposals for the Denver Area 1 requirement, including the protesters and the awardees. After the initial evaluation and the establishment of a competitive range, the agency engaged in two rounds of discussions and requested and obtained final proposal revisions (FPR). Based on the FPR evaluation, the agency rated both First Prestons and MCBs proposals excellent with very low risk, with First Prestons receiving excellent ratings in all areas except under small business subcontracting plan, where it was rated good, and MCBs receiving all excellent ratings except under past performance, where it was rated good.