B-310331.3, Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc., January 7, 2008

B-310331.3 Jan 07, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-CHI-00895, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing services in the state of Michigan. Lakeside contends that the agency's technical evaluation of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310331.3, Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc., January 7, 2008 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: Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc. File: B-310331.3 Date: January 7, 2008 James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal LLC, for the protester. Courtney B. Minor, Esq., Elisa J. Yochim, Esq., and Russell J. Cohen, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging contracting agency's evaluation of protester's proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where agency's evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. DECISION Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-CHI-00895, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing services in the state of Michigan. Lakeside contends that the agency's technical evaluation of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND HUD, through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), administers the Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program, which helps low- and moderate-income individuals and families achieve homeownership. Upon the default and foreclosure of an FHA-insured loan, the mortgage lender files a claim for insurance benefits and, in exchange for payment of the claim, the lender conveys the foreclosed property to HUD. The agency, by means of a management and marketing contractor, then manages and sells a sizable inventory of single family homes. In order to complete these sales, HUD requires closing agent contractors to perform all necessary closing activities on its behalf. The solicitation here involves HUD's procurement of real estate closing services for single family properties owned by the agency located throughout Michigan. RFP sect. B.2, B.3. The RFP, issued on February 7, 2007 as a small-business set-aside, contemplated the award of one or more fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year together with three 1-year options. The RFP identified four evaluation factors: technical and management approach; prior experience; past performance; and price.[1] The solicitation also stated that the three technical factors were of equal importance and, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be the –best value— to the government all factors considered. Id. sections M.1, M.4. The RFP contained detailed instructions regarding the submission of proposals.[2] Specifically, the technical approach submission was required to demonstrate the offeror's ability to carry out and manage the work to be performed and to ensure the quality of performance. The technical proposal was also to be clear, concise, and sufficiently detailed so as to substantiate the validity of an offeror's stated claims. Further, the RFP stated that proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the performance work statement requirements, but rather, must provide convincing rationales showing how the offeror intended to meet the requirements. Offerors were also instructed to assume that HUD had no prior knowledge of their facilities and/or experience, and that the agency's evaluation would be based on the information included within the proposals. Id. sect. L.8. Additionally, the RFP stated that HUD intended to evaluate proposals and make award without conducting discussions; the agency, however, also reserved the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the contracting officer to be necessary. Id. sect. L.2. Twenty-two offerors, including Lakeside, submitted proposals by the March 7 closing date. An agency technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated offerors' proposals as to the technical factors. As set forth above, the RFP established the agency's method of evaluation for each technical factor.