B-297425.2, KIC Development, LLC, January 26, 2006

B-297425.2 Jan 26, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights KIC Development, LLC protests the award of a contract to Legin Group, 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 Atlanta region. KIC argues that HUD unreasonably concluded that KIC's proposal was technically unacceptable. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-297425.2, KIC Development, LLC, January 26, 2006 Decision Matter of: KIC Development, LLC File: B-297425.2 Date: January 26, 2006 Anthony Acri for the protester. Rebecca L. Taylor, Esq., Leftwich & Ludaway, for Legin Group, Inc., an intervenor. 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 Protest challenging agency's determination that protester's proposal was technically unacceptable is sustained where the agency's determination that the proposal was unacceptable because it did not show that the protester itself met the solicitation's experience requirement--while its subcontractor clearly did--was inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme, which allowed offerors to meet experience requirements using the experience of properly-committed key employees or subcontractors. DECISION KIC Development, LLC protests the award of a contract to Legin Group, 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 Atlanta region. KIC argues that HUD unreasonably concluded that KIC's proposal was technically unacceptable. We sustain the protest.[1] 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 (SBA) 8(a) program. The RFP anticipated that awards would be made to the offerors submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposals for each area. RFP at M-2.[2] 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. In addition, under each of the three evaluation factors, the solicitation also identified a question, or questions, which 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. 2, at M-4 (for the question under the management plan factor). Under the certification evaluation factor, the RFP required submission of all required certifications and licenses to perform these services. RFP at M-2. There is no issue in this protest regarding KIC's evaluation as acceptable under this factor. Instead, this protest turns on KIC's evaluation under the experience and past performance factor. Under this factor, the RFP required that –[t]he Offeror and/or its proposed key personnel and/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. As indicated above, the RFP set forth three questions that had to be answered in the affirmative for offerors to be deemed acceptable under the experience and past performance evaluation factor.