Mayfield Government Inspections

B-414528 Jun 13, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mayfield Government Inspections (MGI), of University City, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Stafford Service Source, Inc. (Stafford), of Kingwood, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07-P-16-JU-D-7008, issued by the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, for elevator inspection services. MGI alleges that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an improper best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Mayfield Government Inspections File:  B-414528 Date:  June 13, 2017 Edward Holman, Mayfield Government Inspections, for the protester. Helen Y. Kearns, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation and best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and that the tradeoff decision was reasonable and supported. DECISION Mayfield Government Inspections (MGI), of University City, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Stafford Service Source, Inc. (Stafford), of Kingwood, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07-P-16-JU-D-7008, issued by the General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, for elevator inspection services.  MGI alleges that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an improper best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on August 5, 2016, as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for elevator inspection services to be performed over a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods at various sites throughout Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and New Mexico.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1; RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS) ¶ 1.  Specific elevator inspections to be performed include semi-annual inspections, annual inspections, and 5-year full load full speed test/inspections.  PWS ¶ 4. Award was to be made on a best-value basis considering two factors, technical and price.  RFP § M.2.  The technical factor consisted of three subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  management plan, experience, and past performance.  Id.  The three technical subfactors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id.  Each subfactor would be assigned an adjectival rating and evaluated for adequacy of response and feasibility of approach.  RFP § M.2., M.3.  Further, each subfactor had specific evaluation criteria.  RFP § M.3. The agency received eight proposals in response to the solicitation.  Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts at 8.  Stafford proposed a price of $1,349,148, and MGI proposed a price of $1,255,728.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 13, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) ¶ 5.  The technical evaluation results were as follows:   Management Plan Experience Past Performance Stafford Very Good Satisfactory Very Good MGI Marginal Marginal Marginal AR Tab 12, Source Selection Evaluation Board Report (SSEB) at 14. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that Stafford’s proposal represented the best value to the government.  AR Tab 13, SSDD ¶ 11.  The SSA explained that Stafford’s proposal received three strengths and no weaknesses under the management plan subfactor, noting the fact that Stafford proposed to provide additional training for its inspectors and to audit a certain percentage of its inspections to ensure quality assurance.  Id. at ¶ 8.  The SSA also explained that Stafford’s proposal received one strength and no weaknesses under the past performance subfactor for submitting two past performance questionnaires that exceeded the solicitation’s requirements.  Id.  The SSA acknowledged that Stafford proposed a higher price than MGI, but concluded that the higher price was worth the tradeoff for Stafford’s technical merit and lower risk of unsuccessful contract performance.  Id.  MGI filed the instant protest after its debriefing. DISCUSSION MGI objects to the award on the grounds that the agency misevaluated the technical proposals, and made an improper best‑value tradeoff decision.  After reviewing the record, we find that neither argument has merit. [1] Technical Evaluation MGI makes various allegations in support of its argument that the agency misevaluated the technical proposals under each technical subfactor.