B-310568, Done Right Building Services, Inc., December 17, 2007

B-310568 Dec 17, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Done Right Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NHI/Urban Services Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAMA-07-R-0002, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration, for operations and maintenance services at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York. Done Right argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and selection of NHI/Urban's proposal for award evidenced bias against Done Right and was unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310568, Done Right Building Services, Inc., December 17, 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: Done Right Building Services, Inc. File: B-310568 Date: December 17, 2007 Paul J. Hogan, Esq., Hogan & Associates, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes & Gordon, for NHI/Urban Services Group, Inc., the intervenor. Gary L. Brooks, Esq., National Archives and Records Administration, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection are unobjectionable where the record does not support the protester's contention that the agency's evaluation and source selection evidenced bias against the protester and was unreasonable. DECISION Done Right Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to NHI/Urban Services Group, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAMA-07-R-0002, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration, for operations and maintenance services at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York. Done Right argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and selection of NHI/Urban's proposal for award evidenced bias against Done Right and was unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government based upon the evaluation factors of technical understanding and management approach (hereinafter technical understanding), personnel, relevant past performance, and price. RFP at 84. The solicitation stated that the non-price factors were equal in importance, and when combined, would be considered significantly more important than price in determining which proposal represented the best value. Id. The agency received proposals from three offerors, including Done Right (the incumbent contractor) and NHI/Urban. Done Right's proposal initially received ratings of –marginal— under each of the non-price evaluation factors, and was informed that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, Initial TEP Report, at 5-6; Tab 12, Competitive Range Exclusion Letter (Aug. 30, 2007). Done Right requested that the agency's decision to exclude its proposal from the competitive range be reconsidered. AR, Tab 15, Done Right Letter to Agency (Sept. 7, 2007). In response, the agency reevaluated Done Right's proposal, raised the rating assigned under the personnel factor from –marginal— to –acceptable,— and included Done Right's proposal in the competitive range. AR, Tab 17, Agency Letter to Done Right (Sept. 19, 2007). Discussions were held, and revised proposals were requested and received. Done Right's revised proposal was rated by the agency as –acceptable— under the technical understanding and personnel factors, –marginal— under the past performance factor and –marginal— overall, at a proposed price of $3,113,820. AR, Tab 20, Source Selection Decision, at 1. NHI/Urban's proposal received ratings of –acceptable— under the personnel factor, –outstanding— under the technical understanding and past performance factors, and –better— overall, at a proposed price of $3,718,240. Id.The source selection authority (SSA) found that NHI/Urban's proposal represented the best value to agency and documented the reasons why this was the case. Thus, award was made to NHI/Urban. Done Right argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and selection of NHI/Urban's proposal for award were unreasonable and evidenced bias against Done Right. With regard to the allegation of bias, Done Right points out that a former employee of Done Right is the Library's current facility manager and acted as the technical evaluation panel (TEP) chairperson for this acquisition, and asserts that this individual is biased against Done Right because he –left Done Right under troubling circumstances.— Protester's Comments at 2.