B-295836; B-295836.2, Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc., April 18, 2005

B-295836; B-295836.2, Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc., April 18, 2005 TITLE: B-295836; B-295836.2, Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc., April 18, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295836; B-295836.2 DATE: April 18, 2005 ******************************************************************* B-295836; B-295836.2, Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc., April 18, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc. File: B-295836; B-295836.2 Date: April 18, 2005 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, for the protester. Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn, for Integrity Management Services, Inc., the intervenor. Lt. Col. Joseph C. Fetterman and Maj. Frank A. March, Department of the Army, for the agency. Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency properly considered late proposal revision because agency action was paramount cause of late delivery of the revision and acceptance would not compromise the integrity of the competitive process, where agency extended the closing date for receipt of proposals to Saturday (not a business day of agency) from Friday after issuing a material amendment on Thursday; a commercial carrier unsuccessfully attempted delivery of the proposal revision on Saturday, but the agency's doors were locked and the agency had not posted delivery instructions for that day to advise that agency personnel were on-site to accept deliveries; and the proposal revision was delivered to agency by commercial carrier on Monday, the next business day. 2. Agency's decision in a "best value" negotiated procurement selecting for award a higher-priced proposal that offered a superior quality control program was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Integrity Management Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-04-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Army for hospital housekeeping services at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed unit-price contract for a base period with 4 option years. We deny the protest. The due date and time for submission of written proposals was originally stated to be May 14 at 1 p.m. The agency issued five amendments prior to the scheduled closing, none of which changed the closing time. Amendment No. 0005, issued on Thursday, May 13, included revisions in the quantity of work under several contract line items numbers. On Friday, May 14, following several requests from potential offerors, the agency extended the closing date to Saturday, May 15, at 1 p.m. Supplemental Agency Report, Tab 19, E-mail Message to Potential Offerors. The agency's office was closed on May 15, although agency personnel were there to assist in completing a move within the building that had begun on May 13. The contracting officer states that although the agency's doors were locked on May 15, "someone was supposed to be listening for the expected FedEx deliveries, but never heard the knock"; one proposal was delivered on that date, however. Contracting Officer's Supplemental Statement at 2. The contracting officer states that when agency personnel exited the building on Saturday, a note was found stating that Federal Express had attempted delivery that morning.[1] Id. On May 14, Integrity had submitted to Federal Express for delivery on Saturday, May 15, a proposal revision that acknowledged amendment No. 0005 and amended the terms of its proposal.[2] The agency received Integrity's proposal revision (and submissions from two other offerors) from Federal Express at 8:28 a.m. on Monday, May 17. The agency determined that, given the circumstances that occurred at the agency's office on May 15, all of the submissions received on May 17 would be considered as timely proposals or proposal revisions. Contracting Officer's Supplemental Statement at 2. The RFP provided for award on a "best value" basis considering four technical factors and past performance and price. The technical factors--on-site work execution, quality control, business experience, and technical management transition--were of equal in importance to each other. The on-site work execution and quality control factors each contained three equally weighted subfactors. The technical factors, when combined, were slightly more important than past performance; the technical factors and past performance, when combined, were significantly more important than price.