Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc., B-295068, January 19, 2005

B-295068 Jan 19, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc. (ELE) protests the award of contracts to AMES Corporation, The Ginn Group, JWK International, Quality Services International, LLC (QSI), and VW International, Inc. (VWI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-03-R-0009, issued by the United States Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for operation and maintenance services at government medical facilities in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii and various overseas locations. ELE primarily objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals and the agency's source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-295068, Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc., January 19, 2005 Decision Matter of: Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc. File: B-295068 Date: January 19, 2005 Lyn R. Knox for the protester. Gil Bakshi for AMES Corporation; William H. Venema, Esq., Holland & Knight, for The Ginn Group; Kurt D. Ferstl, Esq., Reed Smith, for JWK International; Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., Barnhill & Associates for Quality Services International, LLC; and Robert D. Vincent for VW International, Inc., intervenors. Steven W. Feldman, Esq., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency's evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. DECISION Erica Lane Enterprises, Inc. (ELE) protests the award of contracts to AMES Corporation, The Ginn Group, JWK International, Quality Services International, LLC (QSI), and VW International, Inc. (VWI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-03-R-0009, issued by the United States Army Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for operation and maintenance services at government medical facilities in the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii and various overseas locations. ELE primarily objects to the agency's evaluation of proposals and the agency's source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on December 8, 2003, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods. The RFP called for two competitions. One competition was set aside for small business concerns, 8(a) concerns, and HUBZone concerns. RFP B, 12.b. Under the restricted competition, the solicitation provided for a total of five awards. The solicitation contemplated two awards under the unrestricted competition (not at issue in this protest). The RFP encouraged offerors to enter into teaming arrangements and joint ventures if it was necessary to provide the full depth and breadth of experience and capability required. The RFP also identified subcontracting as a valid teaming approach for this procurement. The RFP provided that the awards would be made on a "best value" basis considering the factors of technical, management, past performance, small business participation, and price. The RFP stated that the technical and management factors were equal in importance and that each was more important than the past performance factor. The past performance factor was significantly more important than the small business participation factor. The RFP stated that price was approximately equal in importance to the past performance factor. Under the technical evaluation factor, offerors were to be evaluated based on their experience in the operation and maintenance of medical facilities and were required to provide a list of contracts for the last 5 years that were directly related to the required operation and maintenance experience. RFP amend. 2, L.3.2. Under the past performance factor, offerors were to be evaluated on their performance under existing and prior contracts/subcontracts for services similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to this requirement. RFP M, 2.4. Offerors were to include past performance information concerning the projects that they included in their technical proposals under experience. RFP amend. 2, L.5.3. The RFP also specifically called for past performance information for significant subcontractors proposed by offerors. However, the RFP also stated that the past performance evaluation of the prime contractor would carry more weight in the evaluation. Id. The agency received numerous proposals in response to the RFP. After the initial evaluation, the contracting officer included nine offerors' proposals in the competitive range for the restricted competition. Discussions were conducted and revised proposals were requested and received.