B-297425, Prudent Technologies, Inc., January 5, 2006

B-297425 Jan 05, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Prudent Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tidewater, Inc. by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. R-ATL-01810, issued to procure lead evaluation services for single-family properties owned by HUD and located within specified geographic regions; the award at issue here is for lead evaluation services within HUD's Denver region. Prudent argues that HUD unreasonably concluded that Prudent's proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297425, Prudent Technologies, Inc., January 5, 2006 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: Prudent Technologies, Inc. File: B-297425 Date: January 5, 2006 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for the protester. Jud E. McNatt, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Ralph O. White, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester's contention that the agency unreasonably found its proposal technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the proposal did not provide information requested by the solicitation, and that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme. DECISION Prudent Technologies, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Tidewater, Inc. by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. R-ATL-01810, issued to procure lead evaluation services for single-family properties owned by HUD and located within specified geographic regions; the award at issue here is for lead evaluation services within HUD's Denver region. Prudent argues that HUD unreasonably concluded that Prudent's proposal was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on July 27, 2005, and anticipated the award of up to four contracts for lead evaluation services, one for each of the four areas comprising the jurisdictions of HUD's Homeownership Centers in Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, and Santa Ana. The competition was limited to firms participating in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. The RFP anticipated that four awards would be made--one for each geographic area--to the offerors submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals for each area. RFP at M-2.[1] Offerors could propose to perform in one, or any combination, of the four areas. The RFP identified three evaluation factors: (1) certification; (2) experience and past performance; and (3) management plan. RFP at M-2; RFP amend. 2, at M-4. The evaluation scheme advised potential offerors that proposals must be rated acceptable under all three evaluation factors to be eligible for award. RFP at M-2. Of relevance in this protest is the RFP's evaluation scheme under the experience and past performance factor. Under this factor, the RFP identified several requirements and requested that offerors provide specific information. For example, the RFP required that either the offeror, its proposed key personnel, or its proposed subcontractors –must have performed the same or similar services as required by the solicitation over approximately the last three years.— RFP at M-2. If an offeror wanted to meet this experience requirement with individuals not currently employed, or with other corporate entities with which it would subcontract, the RFP required the submission of commitment letters with the proposal. The RFP also required that offerors –identify all contracts, either ongoing or completed within the last three years, which demonstrate performance relevant to the solicitation requirements.— Id.Offerors with more than five relevant contracts were required to identify only the five most recent contracts where they performed these services. For each of these contracts, the RFP advised that the Offeror must describe the type and quantity of service provided, the value of those services, the contract award date, the contract completion date, and the name and title, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address (if available) of a person familiar with the offeror's performance. RFP at M-3. Each of the three evaluation factors also identified a question, or questions, which the solicitation indicated had –to be answered in the affirmative, during proposal evaluation phase, in order for the offeror to be deemed acceptable for this factor.— See RFP at M-2 (for the question under the certification factor); RFP at M-3 (for the three questions under the experience and past performance factor); and RFP amend.