W W Contractors, Inc.

B-410825 Feb 26, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights WW Contractors, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Aleut Facility Support Services, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-08P-14-JB-D-0040 for building operations and maintenance services. WW Contractors challenges the agency's evaluation of the firm's proposal under both the price and non-price evaluation factors. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: WW Contractors, Inc. File: B-410825 Date: February 26, 2015 Keith Barker, WW Contractors, Inc., for the protester. Lee P. Curtis, Esq., and William J. Bainbridge, Esq., for Aleut Federal Support Services, LLC, the intervenor. Robert W. Schlattman, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably rejected the protester’s proposal for being unbalanced and unrealistic is denied where the record shows that the agency’s rejection of the protester’s price proposal as unrealistic was reasonable. DECISION WW Contractors, Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Aleut Facility Support Services, Inc., of Colorado Springs, Colorado, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-08P-14-JB-D-0040 for building operations and maintenance services. WW Contractors challenges the agency’s evaluation of the firm’s proposal under both the price and non-price evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 14, 2014, sought proposals to provide operations and maintenance services at 10 federal properties in Colorado. RFP at 14. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for basic services, and fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity orders for additional services, over a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. at 14, 444. Proposals were to be evaluated on a best-value basis, with tradeoffs between price and the following non-price factors: (1) experience on similar contracts/task orders, (2) past performance on similar contracts/task orders, and (3) management plan. Id. at 448. Experience and past performance were to be of equal importance, and were each of greater importance than management plan. Id. at 448. Non-price factors, when combined, were to be approximately equal to price. Id. Under the experience factor, the agency was to consider the extent of the offeror’s experience as the prime contractor for contracts and task orders of similar scope, complexity and size. Id. at 449. Contract/task orders that were more similar in size, complexity, and scope might be evaluated more favorably. Id. Under the past performance factor, the agency was to evaluate the quality of the offeror’s past performance, considering similarity of scope, complexity and size. Id. A more favorable evaluation would be provided for references that received higher than satisfactory ratings, were more similar to the solicitation requirements, or both. Id. The RFP specified various criteria under which past performance and experience references would be considered similar in complexity, including criteria for building mechanical, automation, electrical and plumbing systems as well as green energy components. Id. at 448. For example, experience with building plumbing systems was to include distribution, filtration, water treatment, sump pumps and sewage injectors including use in a high rise facility. Id. The RFP included two attachments, one for the offeror to submit experience information for at least three examples (Attachment 1), and one to be submitted directly to the agency by the references identified by the offeror for use in the past performance evaluation (Attachment 2). Id. at 446. Attachment 1 requested information about the contract/task order, and specifically asked the contractor to describe how it met the similar complexity and scope definitions in the RFP. Id. at 451. Offerors were required to submit pricing information for each of the nine contract line item numbers (CLIN) for the base year and option years. RFP at 447; Amendment 3, Standard Form 1449, at 3-11. The RFP warned that offerors whose prices were unbalanced, unreasonable, or unrealistic, might be rejected as unacceptable. Id. The RFP also stated that an offer might be rejected as non-responsive if it was materially unbalanced as to prices for the initial and option periods, explaining that “an offer is unbalanced when it is based on prices which are significantly less than cost for some work, and prices which are significantly overstated for other work.” Id.