B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4, YORK Building Services, Inc., November 3, 2005

B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4, YORK Building Services, Inc., November 3, 2005 TITLE: B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4, YORK Building Services, Inc., November 3, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4 DATE: November 3, 2005 ********************************************************************************** B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4, YORK Building Services, Inc., November 3, 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: YORK Building Services, Inc. File: B-296948.2; B-296948.3; B-296948.4 Date: November 3, 2005 Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Terry L. Elling, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Tamara M. McNulty, Esq., and Carol F. Westmoreland, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal and Ganister, for Obsi1, Inc., an intervenor. Elin M. Dugan, Esq., United States Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is sustained where source selection official failed to document rationale for source selection consistent with differential weighting of technical evaluation factors and emphasis on technical superiority as required by solicitation. DECISION YORK Building Services, Inc., a small business, protests the award of a contract by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-OPPM-05-R-70 for janitorial services at the Agriculture South Building, the Jamie L. Whitten Building, and the Cotton Annex building,[1] and for recycling services only at the Sydney R. Yates Building, all located in Washington, DC. YORK objects that the evaluation of proposals was inconsistent with the RFP. We sustain the protest. The USDA issued the RFP as a small business set-aside on September 9, 2004, seeking fixed-price proposals for a base period and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 8-9. The RFP emphasized the importance of technical superiority over price in the source selection, and listed three technical factors in descending order of importance: technical approach, management plan, and past performance. RFP at 121-23. Offerors were required to provide detailed information with respect to each aspect of the non-price factors for evaluation purposes. RFP at 121. USDA received 25 proposals, of which it found 23 technically unacceptable; the proposals of YORK and Obsi1, Inc. were the only two deemed technically acceptable. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection official (SSO), included only these two proposals in the competitive range. She conducted discussions with YORK and Obsi1, after which they submitted final proposal revisions. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. The SSO noted the results of the evaluation in her source selection decision as follows: Final Proposal Revisions (based on a 12-month period): The final proposal revisions, including technical clarifications were timely received May 17. The Evaluation Panel reconvened and conducted follow up evaluations between May 24, 2005, through June 7, 2005. The Contracting Officer (CO) received the panel's final scores June 8, 2005. Overall Evaluated Total Company Prior Rating Revised Rating Base Price +Options a. Obsi1 81 88.0 $3,321,595.37 $16,662,584.10 b. YORK 82 87.5 $[deleted] $[deleted] Agency Report (AR), Tab D, Source Selection Decision, at 2.[2] The SSO ultimately concluded that the proposals were technically equal and made award to Obsi1 on the basis of its lower price. After a debriefing, YORK protested to our Office. YORK raises a number of challenges to the procurement. As explained below, while we conclude that several are not meritorious, we sustain the protest on the basis of other flaws in the evaluation and selection raised by the protester. YORK first argues that the lower price offered by Obsi1 reveals that Obsi1 would not provide sufficient labor to perform the services specified in the RFP, and that Obsi1's low price created performance risks that the agency failed to appreciate. The agency responds that Obsi1 committed to perform the required services, and even assuming that YORK is correct that Obsi1's fixed price is below the cost of performance, an offeror, in its business judgment, properly may decide to propose, and an agency may accept, a price that is below cost. See Brewer-Taylor Assocs., B-277845, Oct. 30, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 124 at 4.