Park Tower Management Ltd., B-295589; B-295589.2, March 22, 2005

Park Tower Management Ltd., B-295589; B-295589.2, March 22, 2005 TITLE: Park Tower Management Ltd., B-295589; B-295589.2, March 22, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295589; B-295589.2 DATE: March 22, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Park Tower Management Ltd. File: B-295589; B-295589.2 Date: March 22, 2005 J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Michael J. Noonan, Esq., and James S. DelSordo, Esq., Halloran & Sage LLP, for the protester. Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., and Jennifer M. Miller, Esq., Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, for LB&B Associates, Inc., an intervenor. Ruth Kowarski, Esq., GSA-Public Buildings Service, 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 1. Where solicitation for building maintenance services provided for evaluation of comparability of buildings under prior maintenance contracts to building under solicited requirement, including equipment maintained, agency reasonably determined that awardee's building was comparable, despite fact that equipment awardee maintained was located in adjacent building, not in building submitted for consideration. 2. Evaluation of offerors' preventative maintenance plans was unobjectionable where neither offeror's plan included all required information, and agency scored protester's plan more favorably because it contained more information than awardee's. 3. Where offeror proposed to hire specific individuals employed by incumbent contractor, but failed to include required qualification and other information, agency reasonably considered information from outside proposal to fill in gaps. 4. Protester's allegation that agency improperly held discussions only with awardee after submission of final revised proposals is denied where record shows that contracting officer communicated with awardee only to clarify status of its commitments from proposed personnel. Park Tower Management Ltd. protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-02P-00-PLC-0191, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for mechanical and elevator maintenance services at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York City. Park Tower challenges the technical evaluation, discussions, and award. We deny the protest. The solicitation, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period (3 years) with two 3-year options, sought proposals for all management, supervision, labor, material, repair parts, tools, and equipment for mechanical and elevator maintenance services at the Moynihan Courthouse. The solicitation was issued in two phases, the first being a request for qualifications (RFQ), and the second an RFP for all those found qualified under the RFQ. Under the RFQ, prospective offerors were required to submit evidence of their experience in performing full mechanical maintenance services in at least three buildings considered comparable to the Moynihan Courthouse.[1] Under the RFP, successful RFQ offerors were required to submit proposals, which were to be evaluated under a price factor and the following five technical factors, listed in descending order of importance--past performance (weighted at 55 of a possible 95 percent), preventive maintenance (PM) plan (10A percent), staffing and authority plan (10 percent), quality control (QC) plan (10A percent), and customer service plan (10 percent). The technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal in weight to price. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was found to be the "best value" to the government. Eight offerors, including Park Tower and LB&B, submitted successful qualification statements in response to the RFQ, and both therefore were among the five firms that submitted proposals under the RFP phase of the solicitation. After the initial evaluation of proposals, the agency conducted two rounds of discussions and obtained two proposal revisions. Proposals were scored on a 10-point scale for each technical factor. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) then convened to reach a consensus score for each proposal under each factor, which scores were then multiplied by the applicable factor weights.