DIY, Inc., B-293105.9, December 20, 2004

B-293105.9 Dec 20, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIY, Inc. protests the award of a contract to National Home Management Solutions of New York (NHMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-0PC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for management and marketing (M&M) services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes and other property owned by HUD. The protester maintains that the agency treated DIY in a disparate manner because it failed to provide it with detailed discussion questions similar to those provided other offerors. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293105.9, DIY, Inc., December 20, 2004 Decision Matter of: DIY, Inc. File: B-293105.9 Date: December 20, 2004 Malcolm L. Pritzker, Esq., for the protester. John H. Horne, Esq., Powell Goldstein Frazer & Murphy, for National Home Management Solutions of New York, an intervenor. Rachael Blackburn, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly failed to provide protester with discussion questions similar to those provided other offerors, and therefore treated protester unequally, is denied where record shows that protesters proposal was eliminated from competitive range, so agency was not required to hold discussions with protester. DECISION DIY, Inc. protests the award of a contract to National Home Management Solutions of New York (NHMS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-0PC-22505, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for management and marketing (M&M) services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes and other property owned by HUD. The protester maintains that the agency treated DIY in a disparate manner because it failed to provide it with detailed discussion questions similar to those provided other offerors. We deny the protest. The solicitation 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 owned by, or in the custody of, HUD. At issue in this protest is the contract for Philadelphia Area 3, which covers properties located in New York and New Jersey. The RFP advised offerors that the agency would make award on a best value basis, considering price and several technical evaluation factors. Price was significantly less important than the technical factors, which were rated using an adjectival scale of excellent, good, fair, marginal, and unacceptable. The agency received numerous proposals, including DIYs and NHMSs. Based on the evaluation of all proposals, HUD determined that the five firms whose proposals were the most highly rated would be included in the competitive range. The agency found that DIYs proposal, with an overall fair rating, was technically unacceptable and, by letter dated April 30, notified DIY that its proposal was eliminated from the competitive range and from further consideration for contract award. Award was made to NHMS on July 30. Following a post-award debriefing, DIY filed a protest with HUD challenging the evaluation of its proposal; after that protest was denied, it filed this protest with our Office. DIY argues that it received unequal treatment in the procurement, since HUD sent other offerors 4 to 5 pages of questions on April 30, 2004 requesting clarification of significant weaknesses, while asking DIY . . . only a single question on January 21, 2004, not related to clarifying perceived weaknesses. Protest at 1. DIY maintains that it should have been provided the same detailed discussions as other offerors. This argument is without merit. DIY never received discussion questions simply because, as discussed above, DIYs proposal was not included in the competitive range. The purpose of a competitive range determination is to select those offerors with which the agency will hold written or oral discussions. PeopleWorks, Inc. , B257296, Sept. 2, 1994, 94-2CPD 89 at 3. Contracting agencies are not required to retain a proposal in the competitive range where the proposal is not among the most highly rated or where the agency otherwise reasonably concludes that the proposal has no realistic prospect of being selected for award. Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.306(c)(1); Americom Govt Servs., Inc. , B292242, Aug. 1, 2003, 2003 CPD 163 at 3. Once an offerors proposal has been excluded from the competitive range, the agency has no obligation to conduct discussions with the offeror. SOS Interpreting, Ltd. , B-287505, June 12, 2001, 2001 CPD 104 at 12.