B-311313, Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., June 10, 2008

B-311313 Jun 10, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CES) protests the award of a contract to Meridian Management Corporation (MMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-08-1004 by the Social Security Administration for facility management services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals was unreasonable, and that the selection decision was flawed. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-311313, Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc., June 10, 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: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. File: B-311313 Date: June 10, 2008 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Michael D. Maloney, Esq., Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, for the protester. Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Michael A. Gordon, PLLC, for Meridian Management Corporation, an intervenor. Mark S. Ledford, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where agency's evaluation of offerors' experience relied on factors not identified in the solicitation and on distinctions between offerors' experience that were not supported by the record. 2. Protest is sustained where source selection decision was based on a flawed technical evaluation, and also considered an undisclosed evaluation criterion of transition risk in assuming that any non-incumbent contractor would likely cause mistakes in performance that would result in costs for the agency. DECISION Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CES) protests the award of a contract to Meridian Management Corporation (MMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP-08-1004 by the Social Security Administration for facility management services. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of the offerors' technical proposals was unreasonable, and that the selection decision was flawed. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on June 1, 2007, and sought proposals to provide facilities management services for the HaroldWashingtonSocialSecurityCenter, also known as the Great Lakes Program Service Center (GLPSC), in Chicago, Illinois. Offerors were required to propose the following services: facilities management, operation and maintenance of building and mechanical equipment, elevator maintenance, utilities, custodial and related services, sustaining maintenance, security, protective signaling service, and uninterruptible power supply service maintenance. RFP sect. B. MMC is the incumbent contractor currently providing these services for the GLPSC. The RFP anticipated the award of a fixed-price contract, with a 1-year base performance period and nine 1-year option periods. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of the following factors: experience, past performance, and price. RFP sect. H-1. The non-price factors were of equal importance and, combined, were –slightly more important than price.— RFP amend. 1 sect. H-1. The RFP also stated that the agency would evaluate offerors' experience and past performance to develop a –confidence/performance risk— assessment for each proposal. The confidence/performance risk assessment was to be used, along with price, to conduct the selection decision. RFP sect. H-2.2. As relevant here, the RFP stated that the agency would evaluate offerors' proposals under the experience factor based on the following criteria: Experience is the opportunity to learn by doing. The Government will evaluate the extent to which an offeror possesses experience in work similar to the Government's requirements under this solicitation in terms of size, scope and complexity, to enable the offeror to: -identify performance uncertainties and risks; -identify potential performance problems and their symptoms; -identify, fashion and select prospective and appropriate solutions; -implement effective corrective actions; -develop and implement actions that improve efficiency and/or useful life expectancy of facilities and equipment; and -achieve the overall objectives of the contract. RFP sect. H-1(d)(1). The RFP further stated that proposals would be evaluated based on offerors' experience in the following –critical areas—: custodial services, elevator maintenance, energy management, life safety systems maintenance, mechanical systems operation and maintenance, security services, utilities service management, and working productively with unions. Id.Offerors were advised that the agency would –evaluate the offeror's experience in providing relevant and similar services to other corporations or Government agencies . . .