B-299605.2, Financial & Realty Services, LLC, August 9, 2007

B-299605.2 Aug 09, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Financial & Realty Services, LLC (FRS) protests the evaluation of its proposal and award to Apex Logistics, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-HQ-07-10196, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for warehouse operations and labor services. FRS contends that its proposal should have been rated higher technically and should have been selected for award in light of its lower proposed price. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299605.2, Financial & Realty Services, LLC, August 9, 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: Financial & Realty Services, LLC File: B-299605.2 Date: August 9, 2007 Shelton H. Skolnick, Esq., Skolnick & Leishman, P.C., for the protester. Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, 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 Protest challenging evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is denied where record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Financial & Realty Services, LLC (FRS) protests the evaluation of its proposal and award to Apex Logistics, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-HQ-07-10196, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for warehouse operations and labor services. FRS contends that its proposal should have been rated higher technically and should have been selected for award in light of its lower proposed price. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on February 1, 2007 as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract, with fixed-price labor rates, for a base year plus four 1-year option periods. RFP paras. B.1, L.2. Award was to be made to the offeror that submitted the proposal deemed most advantageous to the government considering five equally weighted technical evaluation factors (technical experience and approach, management approach, past performance, personnel, and corporate experience) and price (which was approximately equal in importance to the technical factors combined). Id. para. M.3. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated on the completeness and quality of the information they provided, and that it was the responsibility of each offeror to demonstrate its qualifications in terms of experience, capability, and proposed approaches to meet all of the requirements of the statement of work (SOW). Id.For instance, offerors were instructed that they must demonstrate not only the overall quality of their proposed methodologies to perform all of the required tasks, but also how their experience matches the RFP's performance requirements. Id. The SOW identified numerous warehouse operations requirements (including shipping, receiving and storing property, as well as inventory management services). Id., attach.1, SOW, at 5-8. Numerous requirements for labor support services were also set out in the SOW (including office packing and relocating, scheduling of deliveries, collecting recyclables, configuring rooms for events, emergency cleaning (including moving equipment and collecting trash), shredding and disposal of documents, airing and delivery of carpet tiles, assembly of furniture, and installing window coverings and bulletin boards). Id. at 1'5. The 11 proposals received by the scheduled closing time were evaluated. Two proposals were found to be outstanding in terms of technical merit (Apex's proposal and another firm's higher-priced proposal). Four of the proposals were considered average in terms of technical merit, and four proposals (including FRS's proposal, which was rated second to last of the 11 proposals in terms of technical merit) were considered below average; one proposal was considered unsatisfactory.[1] The protester's proposal's technical rating of below average was primarily based on its failure to adequately demonstrate, as required, its technical experience and proposed approach, management approach, proposed personnel, and corporate experience.[2] Apex's offer (at $12,278,344.40) was the median price proposal received (five proposals priced lower and five proposals priced higher than Apex's proposal were received); FRS submitted the lowest priced proposal (at $10,333,214.92). The agency concluded that between the two highest rated proposals (rated outstanding for overall technical merit), Apex's lower-priced proposal was the most advantageous. The agency then compared Apex's proposal to the proposal ranked next in line technically with a rating of average and which proposed a slightly lower price; the agency concluded that the Apex proposal remained the most advantageous.