B-310762, PM Services Company, February 4, 2008

B-310762 Feb 04, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PM Services Company protests the award of a contract to Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2005-N-1708, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to acquire comprehensive operation and maintenance of the agency's facilities at various locations. PM asserts that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal, and both PM's and the awardee's cost proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310762, PM Services Company, February 4, 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: PM Services Company File: B-310762 Date: February 4, 2008 Leigh T. Hansson, Esq., Gregory S. Jacobs, Esq., and Stephen D. Tibbets, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Lawrence M. Prosen, Esq., and Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLP, for Four Seasons Environmental, Inc., an intervenor. Scott C. Briles, Esq., and Julie Ann Sammons, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated protester's technical proposal, as well as protester's and awardee's cost proposals, is denied where record shows that none of the alleged errors could have resulted in prejudice to the protester. DECISION PM Services Company protests the award of a contract to Four Seasons Environmental, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 2005-N-1708, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to acquire comprehensive operation and maintenance of the agency's facilities at various locations. PM asserts that the agency misevaluated its technical proposal, and both PM's and the awardee's cost proposals.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award, on a –best value— basis, of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for operation and maintenance of CDC's facilities, including scientific laboratories, offices, auditoriums, steam and chilled water plants, freezers, dining facilities, storage facilities, and research animal confinement facilities. The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of six technical factors: experience (worth up to 30 of 100 available points), program management plan (22 points), understanding of the problem (18 points), proposed staff and back-up personnel (16 points), technical approach (14 points), and past performance (not scored). RFP sections M.1, M.2, and M.4. For cost evaluation purposes, the agency would conduct a cost realism evaluation to determine each offeror's ability to project costs that are reasonable and whether the offeror understands the nature and extent of the work to be performed. RFP sect. M.6. The agency received four proposals and, after an initial evaluation, included two--the protester's and the awardee's--in the competitive range. The agency then engaged in discussions with both firms and solicited final proposal revisions (FPR). In evaluating the FPRs, the agency assigned the protester's proposal 85 points, and the awardee's 98 points. PM's final evaluated cost was $71,351,906, while the awardee's was $68,122,022.65. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency determined that, since Four Seasons's proposal was technically superior and offered the lowest evaluated cost, it represented the best value. CDC thus made award to the firm. After receiving a debriefing, PM filed the instant protest. PM challenges the agency's technical evaluation under the understanding of the problem and proposed staff and back-up personnel evaluation factors. According to the protester, had the agency properly evaluated its proposal under these factors, its final total score would have been 8.9 points higher, for a total of 94.9 points. Prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest and, where it is not demonstrated or otherwise evident, we will not sustain a protest allegation, even where the record shows that the agency's actions were arguably improper. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, B-298102, B-298102.3, June 14, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 96 at 7-8; Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 1996). PM was not prejudiced by the alleged evaluation improprieties. While PM asserts that its proposal should have received a total technical score of 94.9 points, it does not challenge Four Seasons's proposal's score of 98 points, or the agency's substantive evaluation findings supporting its conclusion that Four Seasons's proposal was technically superior.