B-298426, Crown Title Corporation, September 21, 2006

B-298426 Sep 21, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Crown Title Corporation protests the award of a contract to Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-PHI-00948, a small business set-aside issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing agent services for HUD properties located in Maryland. Crown primarily contends that, since the RFP provided that technical merit was significantly more important than price, the agency should have awarded the contract to Crown based on its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298426, Crown Title Corporation, September 21, 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: Crown Title Corporation File: B-298426 Date: September 21, 2006 Thomas C. Papson, Esq., and Matthew T. Crosby, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. Thomas J. Madden, Esq., and Sharon A. Jenks, Esq., Venable LLP, for Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc., an intervenor. Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's award to offeror that submitted lower-rated, lower-priced proposal in a best value procurement is proper where the source selection was based on a reasonable determination that the substantial price premium associated with protester's higher-rated, higher-priced proposal was not justified given the level of technical competence available at the lower price. DECISION Crown Title Corporation protests the award of a contract to Lawyers Advantage Title Group, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-PHI-00948, a small business set-aside issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing agent services for HUD properties located in Maryland. Crown primarily contends that, since the RFP provided that technical merit was significantly more important than price, the agency should have awarded the contract to Crown based on its higher-rated, higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on July 17, 2005, anticipated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and 3 option years. RFP at 3, 42. The award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal found to offer the best value considering technical factors and price. The RFP provided the following equally weighted technical evaluation factors: prior experience (including subfactors for closings on the sale of HUD-owned or other properties at similar volumes and in similar geographical areas); technical and management approach (including subfactors for state licensing, quality control, office location, and contract operations); past performance; and personnel qualifications (including subfactors for resumes demonstrating relevant experience, and descriptions of key personnel efforts). Id. at 45-48. Together, the technical evaluation factors were to be significantly more important than price; price, however, was to remain a significant criterion for award. Id. at 48. Prices were to be reviewed to determine whether they were –necessary and reasonable,— reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and were consistent with the methods described in the proposal. Id. at 48. Eleven proposals were received by the August 15 closing date; six of the proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted and final proposal revisions were submitted by November 28. Crown, the incumbent contractor, submitted a proposal rated –excellent— overall with the fourth low total evaluated price of $[deleted]; Crown proposed a price of $[deleted] per closing for the base year [deleted]. Lawyers' proposal was rated –good— overall; the firm proposed the lowest evaluated price of $[deleted], reflecting a proposed price of $[deleted] for each closing [deleted]. Both firms' proposals received favorable technical evaluations. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated the Crown proposal –excellent— under all four evaluation factors, reflecting subfactor ratings of mostly –excellent— with some ratings of –good;— the proposal was also assessed as having very low risk. The Lawyers proposal received one rating of –excellent— and three ratings of –good— under the four equally weighted evaluation factors, reflecting ratings of –excellent— and –good— under the subfactors; the proposal was assessed as having low risk. While the TEP concluded that both firms –can perform the work satisfactorily,— the TEP had concerns that Lawyers' low price for this fixed-price contract did not reflect the level of effort the firm detailed in its technical proposal.