Chapman Law Firm, LPA, B-293105.6, B-293105.10, B-293105.12, November 15, 2004

Chapman Law Firm, LPA, B-293105.6, B-293105.10, B-293105.12, November 15, 2004 TITLE: Chapman Law Firm, LPA, B-293105.6, B-293105.10, B-293105.12, November 15, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293105.6, B-293105.10, B-293105.12 DATE: November 15, 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 A Matter of: Chapman Law Firm, LPA A File: B-293105.6, B-293105.10, B-293105.12 A Date: November 15, 2004 A James S. DelSordo, Esq., Halloran & Sage, for the protester. Alfred C. Moran, Esq., for Harrington Moran Barksdale, Inc., an intervenor. Carolyn Fiume, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST A 1. Protest that agency misled protester during discussions into believing that its responses had adequately addressed identified weaknesses and deficiencies is denied where record shows that agency neither indicated to protester that its responses to discussion questions resolved agency*s concerns, nor otherwise indicated that protester could not further address those concerns in its final proposal revision. A 2. Protest that agency*s evaluation improperly failed to credit protester for proposed subcontractor*s experience is denied where subcontractor was removed from management position in protester*s final proposal revision. A 3. Protest that agency incorrectly averaged adjectival ratings for individual evaluation factors in determining overall adjectival rating for protester*s technical proposal is denied, since record shows that award decision was based, not on adjectival ratings, but on relative advantages and disadvantages of protester*s and awardee*s proposals. DECISION A Chapman Law Firm, LPA protests the award of a contract to Harrington Moran Barksdale, Inc. (HMBI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for marketing and management services (M&M) for HUD-owned single-family properties in the Illinois/ Indiana area. A We deny the protest. A The solicitation provided for a *best value* evaluation based on price and the following 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. Price was significantly less important than the technical factors, which were rated using an adjectival scale of excellent, good, fair, marginal and unacceptable. A Several proposals were received, and Chapman*s and HMBI*s were among those included in the competitive range. After multiple rounds of discussions and the submission of final proposal revisions (FPR), Chapman*s proposal was rated fair overall (fair for management capability/management plan, good for past performance, fair for experience, fair for proposed key personnel, good for subcontract management plan, and excellent for small business subcontracting plan). Chapman*s proposed price was $147,776,750. Agency Report (AR) at 15, 16. HMBI*s proposal was rated good overall, with a good rating for each factor. Id. Although HMBI*s price was $177,697.00, the technical evaluation panel recommended HMBI for award as the firm submitting the best value proposal. The contracting officer concurred and made award to HMBI. A Chapman challenges the award decision on a number of grounds. We have reviewed the record and find Chapman*s arguments to be without merit. We discuss several of Chapman*s principal arguments below. A DISCUSSIONS A Chapman*s proposal was rated fair under management capability/quality of proposed management plan. Chapman asserted in its initial protest that, at the debriefing, HUD identified two proposal weaknesses under this factor that it improperly failed to identify during discussions--the preliminary quality control plan included few key management controls or corrective actions, and the preliminary marketing plan contained many errors and omissions, as well as poorly detailed proposed strategies. In its report, HUD demonstrated that it did in fact raise these issues with Chapman during discussions.