Facility Healthcare Services, Inc. (1333ND20RNB190010)

B-418743.2,B-418743.3 Sep 02, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Facility Healthcare Services, Inc. (Facility), a small business of Brighton, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Peak Facility Solutions, LLC (Peak), a small business of Conifer, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333ND20RNB190010, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for facilities maintenance and operations services. The protester challenges the adequacy of discussions conducted by the agency, the agency's evaluation of proposals, and the source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  Facility Healthcare Services, Inc. File:  B-418743.2; B-418743.3 Date:  September 2, 2021 William Weisberg, Esq., Law Offices of William Weisberg, for the protester. John R. Prairie, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., and Adam Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Peak Facility Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Jonathan S. Baker, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Raymond Richards, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the adequacy of discussions involving price is denied where the agency informed the protester that its price was significantly higher than the independent government cost estimate, and pointed the protester to the exact contract line item prices requiring revision. 2.  Protester is not an interested party to challenge the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal or the agency’s source selection decision where the agency reasonably determined that the protester’s proposed price was unreasonably high, effectively rendering the protester’s proposal unawardable, and there were eligible intervening offerors whose proposals were unchallenged.  DECISION Facility Healthcare Services, Inc. (Facility), a small business of Brighton, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Peak Facility Solutions, LLC (Peak), a small business of Conifer, Colorado, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333ND20RNB190010, issued by the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for facilities maintenance and operations services.  The protester challenges the adequacy of discussions conducted by the agency, the agency’s evaluation of proposals, and the source selection decision.   We deny the protest. Background NIST issued the RFP as a small business set‑aside under the commercial item procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, and the negotiated procurement procedures of FAR part 15.  Agency Report (AR), Attach. 6, RFP at 1, 9‑10.  The solicitation sought proposals for facilities maintenance and operation of NIST’s central utility plant at the agency’s Boulder, Colorado campus, as well as equipment maintenance at other NIST facilities in Colorado and Hawaii.  Id. at 3‑8.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed‑price contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government considering the following factors:  past performance; organization, management, and key personnel; technical approach; and price.  RFP at 135, 145‑147.  Each non‑price factor was approximately equal in importance, and when combined, the non‑price factors were approximately equal in importance to price.  Id. at 145‑147.  The RFP explained that prices would be evaluated for reasonableness using at least one of the following three techniques:  comparing all proposed prices received in response to the solicitation with each other; comparing proposed prices with the independent government cost estimate (IGCE); or comparing proposed prices with available historical information.  Id. at 147.  Further, the RFP advised that a price “found to be either unreasonably high or unrealistically low in relation to the proposed work may be indicative of an inherent lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may result in the overall proposal being considered unacceptable.”  Id. at 147.  Proposals were due on November 13, 2020.  Id. at 1. NIST received five proposals in response to the RFP.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at ¶ 11.  The agency’s initial evaluation found all five proposals technically unacceptable.  AR, Attach. 9, Competitive Range Determination at 5.  Facility’s proposed price was “not determined as fair and reasonable in comparison with the [IGCE] and competitive[ly] price[ed] offers.”  Id.