CMC & Maintenance, Inc., B-293803.2, December 2, 2004

B-293803.2 Dec 02, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CMC & Maintenance, Inc. protests the termination of its contract for convenience, and the subsequent award to Secure Services Group, Inc. (SSG), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HSFE01-04-Q-0001, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for operation, maintenance, and repair of mechanical components at two federal buildings. CMC asserts that the agency's actions were unnecessary because the original award to CMC was proper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293803.2, CMC & Maintenance, Inc., December 2, 2004 Decision Matter of: CMC & Maintenance, Inc. File: B-293803.2 Date: December 2, 2004 Michael McCue for the protester. Joseph J. Mack for Secure Services Group, Inc., an intervenor. Stephen T. Orsino, Esq., Federal Emergency Management Agency, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's decision to reevaluate quotations, after award had been made to protester, was reasonable and appropriate where original award determination was based on erroneous evaluation information and agency record lacked any documentation to support original adjectival evaluation ratings. DECISION CMC & Maintenance, Inc. protests the termination of its contract for convenience, and the subsequent award to Secure Services Group, Inc. (SSG), under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HSFE01-04-Q-0001, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for operation, maintenance, and repair of mechanical components at two federal buildings. CMC asserts that the agency's actions were unnecessary because the original award to CMC was proper. We deny the protest. The RFQ called for quotations to provide all labor and materials necessary for operation and maintenance at the Federal Regional Center and the vehicle storage and administration building in Maynard, Massachusetts. The current contract, being performed by SSG, was to expire at the end of August 2004, and the agency needed a bridge contract to cover services while it finalized a new competitive solicitation. The RFQ contemplated issuance of a fixed-price contract for a period of 1 month, with a 6-month option expiring in March 2005. Quotations were to be evaluated under three factors--technical qualifications (including resumes of individuals proposed as engineering technician IV); past performance; and cost/price. The technical factor was considered more important than past performance and the non-price factors were considered significantly more important than cost. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. Four vendors, including CMC and SSG, submitted quotations, which were evaluated by the then-cognizant contracting officer, who alone evaluated their technical qualifications. The contracting officer summarized her adjectival ratings in matrix form and, without identifying the vendors by name, furnished them to the threemember technical evaluation panel (TEP) for review. Based on this review, bidder 1 (SSG) was rated technically lower, and had a lower price, than bidder 2 (CMC); the TEP thus recommended award to CMC. After awarding the contract to CMC, the contracting officer left federal service and was replaced by another individual. Thereafter, SSG requested a debriefing, but when the replacement contracting officer reviewed the contracting file, she determined that the evaluation was so flawed that it had to be redone. She notified the vendors and had the TEP review each vendor's quotation, individually score them, and then complete a consensus evaluation. The TEP's consensus evaluation rated CMC's quotation as good under the technical factor and unsatisfactory under the past performance factor, while rating SSG's quotation as outstanding under both factors. Based on SSG's technical ratings and low price, the contracting officer terminated CMC's contract and made award to SSG. Upon learning of the termination of its contract and the new award, CMC filed this protest. CMC does not maintain that the reevaluation of quotations was unreasonable or otherwise flawed but, rather, asserts that the termination of its contract, and the new award to SSG, were improper because the agency had no need to conduct a reevaluation. In CMC's view, the evaluation record was sufficient to support the original award. With regard to contract awards, an agency must document its judgments in sufficient detail to show that they are not arbitrary. U.S. Defense Sys., Inc. , B245563, Jan. 17, 1992, 92-1 CPD 89 at 3.