The Brewer-Garrett Company (47PF0021Q0014)

B-420764 Aug 10, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Brewer-Garrett Company, of Middleburg Heights, Ohio, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), of Chicago, Illinois, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PF0022Q0014 pursuant to the GSA Federal Supply Schedule, Multiple Award Schedule, for consolidated facilities management (CFM) services at four federal buildings in Ohio. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of quotations and in the resulting best-value tradeoff. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: The Brewer-Garrett Company File: B-420764 Date: August 10, 2022 Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., and Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Koprince Law, LLC, for the protester. Joanna M. Obrochta, Esq., and Joel D. Malkin, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency evaluation of quotations and tradeoff decision is denied where the evaluation and tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION The Brewer-Garrett Company, of Middleburg Heights, Ohio, protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), of Chicago, Illinois, by the General Services Administration (GSA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 47PF0022Q0014 pursuant to the GSA Federal Supply Schedule, Multiple Award Schedule, for consolidated facilities management (CFM) services at four federal buildings in Ohio. The protester alleges that the agency erred in its evaluation of quotations and in the resulting best-value tradeoff We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ on November 24, 2021, seeking to procure CFM services at four federal buildings in Ohio. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. CFM services involve a single contractor managing and performing both traditional facility operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, such as electrical and plumbing maintenance, as well as more specialized services that may typically be handled by a separate contractor, such as elevator maintenance. MOL at 2; Agency Report (AR), Part 1, Tab 1, RFQ, attach. 7, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 672.[1] The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single BPA with a 7-month base period of performance and four 1-year options. Resulting services will be ordered on a fixed-price basis. RFQ at 3. The RFQ contemplated award based on a best-value tradeoff among four evaluation factors, which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) past performance; (2) management plan and approach; (3) socio-economic status; and (4) price. Id. at 9. The RFQ also divided the management plan and approach factor into two subfactors: (1) management plan and (2) quality control plan. Id. The RFQ provided that the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id. The agency received five quotations in response to the RFQ, including from the protester and JLL. MOL at 2. Following an initial evaluation, the agency issued discussion letters to each vendor, and the discussion letter issued to the protester asked several specific questions about areas of concern to the agency. Id.; AR, Part 3, Tab 6, Brewer-Garrett Discussion Letter at 1. For example, the discussion letter asked the protester to clearly state whether its past performance references included elevator maintenance services as part of the contract (whether self-performed or through a direct subcontractor). Id. Similarly, the agency called the protester’s attention to the transition phase requirements of the PWS, and explained that tasks and frequencies were not proposed for various required services, such as elevator maintenance. Id. Following discussions, each vendor submitted a revised quotation. MOL at 2. The agency evaluated the revised proposals and found that JLL’s quotation was the highest technically rated by a significant margin. Id. Specifically, JLL received a score of 76 out of 100 on non-price factors and an overall rating of very good. AR, Part 3, Tab 11, Best-Value Determination at 25. By contrast, Brewer-Garrett received a score of 54 out of 100 on non-price factors and an overall rating of good. Id. However, Brewer-Garrett’s quotation included a total evaluated price of $21,631,479.35, while JLL’s price was $23,090,413.43. Id. The contracting officer ultimately determined JLL’s superior non-price quotation justified paying an approximately $1.4 million price premium, and the agency established a BPA with JLL. Id. at 29, 32.