B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23, Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc., April 4, 2007

B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23, Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc., April 4, 2007 TITLE: B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23, Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc., April 4, 2007 BNUMBER: B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23 DATE: April 4, 2007 ****************************************************************************************** B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23, Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc., April 4, 2007 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: Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc. File: B-293105.21; B-293105.22; B-293105.23 Date: April 4, 2007 Margaret A. Dillenburg, Esq., Alexander Brittin, Esq., and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter & Allen, for the protester. James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal, L.L.C., for Chapman Law Firm Company, LPA, for the intervenor. Kimberly Y. Nash, Esq., and Robert J. Brown, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest asserting organizational conflict of interest is denied where contracting officer reasonably determined that owner of management and marketing (M&M) services contractor in Ohio had sold interest in closing agent contractor for Ohio, the activities of which the M&M contractor will oversee; mere fact that M&M owner initially was reluctant to forego further compensation for his interest in closing agent did not require contracting officer to question the veracity and reliability of notarized documents that indicated that there had been a complete cessation of any continuing financial ties between M&M owner and closing agent. DECISION Greenleaf Construction Company, Inc. protests the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) award of a contract to Chapman Law Firm Company, LPA (CLF), under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, for single-family home management and marketing (M&M) services. Greenleaf primarily asserts that the award to CLF was precluded by an impermissible organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued August 6, 2003, contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-unit-price contracts in 24 geographic regions for M&M services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes. These properties are acquired or retained in custody by HUD pursuant to the Federal Housing Authority's (FHA) role in administering the single-family home mortgage insurance program. FHA insures approved lenders against the risk of loss on loans extended to home buyers; in the event of a default on a loan insured by FHA, the lender acquires title to the property through foreclosure or other procedure, and then conveys the title to HUD in exchange for the payment of insurance benefits. As a result of this program, HUD has a sizable inventory of single-family homes that it needs to maintain and dispose of through sale. The solicitation was issued to meet HUD's requirement to maintain and sell these properties. At issue in this protest is the contract for the properties in the Ohio/Michigan area. For this area (as for 13 other areas), the RFP provided that the award of the contract would follow a cascading procedure under which any award would first be made on the basis of competition considering only eligible small business concerns. If adequate competition between small business concerns did not exist--that is, if there were not "[a]t least two competitive offers . . . received from qualified responsible business concerns at the tier under consideration," with award to be made at "fair market prices as determined in accordance with [Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.] 19.202-6"--award then would be made on the basis of unrestricted competition. RFP sect. M.9.b. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, with the technical factors combined being significantly more important than price. There were six technical factors (in descending order of importance): management capability/quality of proposed management plan, past performance, experience, proposed key personnel, subcontract management, and small business subcontracting participation. The proposals of three offerors that certified themselves as small business concerns, including those of Greenleaf, CLF, and a third firm, were included in the initial competitive range.