B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007

B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007 TITLE: B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007 BNUMBER: B-296741.14; B-296741.15 DATE: April 20, 2007 ************************************************************************* B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007 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: Olympus Building Services, Inc. File: B-296741.14; B-296741.15 Date: April 20, 2007 Grace Bateman, Esq., and Amanda Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the protester. Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Pamela A. Reynolds, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, PC, for Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., an intervenor. Frank A. March, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated awardee's security awareness plan is denied where agency reasonably found that information provided by awardee to address agency's concerns raised during discussions was adequate. 2. Agency's determination that awardee's proposed price was not so low as to present a performance risk was reasonable where agency found price realistic based on comparison of awardee's proposed price to those of other offerors. DECISION Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0017, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial services at the DIA Analysis Center. Olympus challenges the proposal evaluation and best value determination. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on April 14, 2005, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract and provided for award on a "best value" basis considering two technical evaluation factors--technical and management--past performance, and price. With respect to price, the solicitation advised that total prices found to be unrealistically low would be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in meeting contract requirements and would not be considered for award. RFP at 40. DIA initially made award to The Ravens Group on April 14, 2005. However, that award was followed by a series of protests by various offerors under the solicitation and corrective actions by DIA which resulted in reevaluations and different award determinations. In the final evaluation, the technical evaluation board (TEB) rated Rowe's and Olympus's proposals excellent under the technical factors, and rated Rowe excellent and Olympus good for past performance. Rowe's price of $19,217,512 was low, and Olympus's price of $19,775,058 second low. The source selection authority (SSA) performed a best value analysis and selected Rowe for award based on its low price. Olympus protests this award decision. In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statues and regulations. Phillips Med. Sys. of N. Am., B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 129 at 2. We have reviewed the record and find that all of Olympus's arguments are without merit and that the evaluation and source selection were unobjectionable. We discuss several of Olympus's arguments below. TECHNICAL EVALUATION Olympus asserts that Rowe's proposal should not have been rated excellent under the technical factors because it did not include a required security awareness plan. In this regard, in evaluating Rowe's initial proposal, the TEB noted that Rowe had not provided a security awareness plan; the agency pointed this out to Rowe as a weakness during discussions. Letter from Agency to Rowe, Nov. 8, 2005, at 1. In response, in its final proposal revision (FPR), Rowe provided a security awareness plan comprised of a short statement explaining, among other things, that Rowe was familiar with current Defense Security Services and DIA Regulations and security manuals, and stating that Rowe would comply with all DIA security policies. The FPR also included copies of several documents, including an Annual Security Awareness Briefing, a Refresher Security Briefing, and a Security Awareness Bulletin (self inspection handbook for contractors). The TEB determined that this information was sufficient to respond to its original concern. TEB Evaluation at 8.