GAO Report from B-294767

B-294767 Nov 04, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Carpetmaster protests the award of a contract to MC Cova Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-04-KSC-0054, issued by the General Services Administration for janitorial, grounds and related services. Carpetmaster challenges the agency's evaluation of its experience references, and further alleges that MC Cova is ineligible to receive the award, which was restricted to small disadvantaged offerors under the Small Business Administrations (SBA) section 8(a) contracting program. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294767, Carpetmaster, November 4, 2004 Decision Matter of: Carpetmaster File: B-294767 Date: November 4, 2004 Raul Elvins for the protester. Cecillia Chu, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agencys evaluation of protesters experience is denied where the protester failed to adequately demonstrate its experience as required by the request for proposals. DECISION Carpetmaster protests the award of a contract to MC Cova Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-09P-04-KSC-0054, issued by the General Services Administration for janitorial, grounds and related services. Carpetmaster challenges the agencys evaluation of its experience references, and further alleges that MC Cova is ineligible to receive the award, which was restricted to small disadvantaged offerors under the Small Business Administrations (SBA) section 8(a) contracting program. We deny the protest. The RFP was a total set-aside for 8(a) businesses and contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for all management, supervision, labor, materials, supplies, equipment and interpersonal skills necessary to ensure the effective performance of Janitorial and/or Grounds Maintenance and/or Related Services for nine buildings at the United States Border Station in Otay Mesa, California. RFP at 3. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the government. RFP amend. 3, at 79, (a). The two RFP technical evaluation factors, experience and past performance, were, when combined, worth significantly more than price. Id. The RFP required offerors to identify experience in performing similar work to those described in the solicitation within the past three (3) years and similar contracts and subcontracts currently in progress, and specified that [o]fferors who do not, as a minimum, demonstrate experience performing similar work to those described in the solicitation within the past three years (with at least three years of performance completed), will fail to meet the standard. RFP amend. 3, at 17, 1. The RFP required offerors to identify for each experience reference: Customers name, Customers Contracting Officers Name, Address and Phone Number, Contract Number, Place of Performance, Period of Performance, Dollar Amount of Contract, [and] Description of the Work Performed. RFP amend. 3, at 14, a.10. As relevant here, Carpetmasters proposal was ranked 10th in line for award. Supplemental Agency Report (SAR), attach. 1, Price Analysis & Award Recommendation, at 2-3. Although Carpetmasters price was third lowest of the 18 competitors, its technical proposal score was ranked 14th because the agency determined that Carpetmaster did not adequately address the experience requirements. Id. The agency concluded that Carpetmasters price savings was not justified by [its] overall poor technical rating. SAR, attach. 2, Technical Evaluation Team Report, at 2. The agency determined that MC Cova, which submitted the highest technically rated proposal and proposed a higher price than Carpetmaster, should be awarded the contract. SAR, attach. 1, Price Analysis & Award Recommendation, at 4. Carpetmaster protests that the agency failed to give it appropriate evaluation credit for its experience references. In reviewing a protest of a procuring agencys evaluation of offerors technical proposals, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Urban-Meridian Joint Venture , B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD 91 at 2. Our Office will not question an agencys evaluation judgments absent evidence that those judgments are unreasonable or contrary to the stated evaluation criteria. Kay & Assocs., Inc. , B-291269, Dec. 11, 2002, 2003 CPD 12 at 4. Carpetmasters proposal listed nine experience/past performance references; of those, only six listed janitorial and/or grounds keeping, and of those six, only two were within the 3-year time frame. AR, ex. 6, Carpetmaster Proposal, at 12-13.