BNUMBER: B-271119
DATE: June 17, 1996
TITLE: All Star Maintenance, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:All Star Maintenance, Inc.
File: B-271119
Date: June 17, 1996
David W. Croysdale, Esq., and Mitchell W. Quick, Esq., Michael, Best &
Friedrich, for the protester.
Benjamin N. Thompson, Esq., Thompson & Godwin, for Eastern Maintenance
& Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Stephen T. Orsino, Esq., Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and George N. Brezna,
Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals
was unreasonable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation
was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation
criteria.
DECISION
All Star Maintenance, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Eastern
Maintenance & Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N62477-95-R-0099, issued by the Department of the Navy for base family
housing maintenance at the Naval Air Station in Patuxent River,
Maryland. All Star argues that the Navy's evaluation of the offerors'
proposals and its subsequent best value determination were
unreasonable.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued August 18, 1995, anticipated the award of a
combination fixed-price, indefinite quantity contract to be performed
over 1 base year, with up to 4 option years. The maintenance and
repair of the 790 family housing units and real property at issue
includes change of occupancy work, service calls, janitorial services,
painting, appliance replacement, grounds maintenance, and pest control
services. Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was the
most advantageous to the government, considering three equally
important evaluation criteria: technical/management, past
performance, and price.
The technical/management criterion consisted of three equally
important factors: staffing, method of operation, and relevant
experience. The past performance criterion involved a review of the
references for each project listed under the relevant experience
factor; the Navy's conclusions here would be highly influential in
determining the relative merits and risk associated with an offeror's
overall proposal in a comparative assessment with all competitors to
determine the offer considered most advantageous to the government.
Price, not at issue here, would be evaluated for realism and
reasonableness.
Five proposals were submitted by the October 3 closing date. In
evaluating the proposals, the Navy assigned both a subjective risk
rating and an overall adjectival rating to each proposal,[1] and
eliminated two proposals from the competitive range. After conducting
discussions and evaluating the discussion responses, the Navy narrowed
the competitive range to two proposals, those of All Star and Eastern.
Best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted on January 23, 1996, and
the agency conducted its final evaluation. Both offerors received
identical low risk and exceptional overall ratings. Eastern's price
was $10,334,303 and All Star's price was $10,760,488.
The source selection advisory board (SSAB) was presented with the
evaluation results and determined that Eastern's proposal represented
the best value to the government:
"Both Eastern and All Star have several similar strengths. They
have offered an experienced, empowered project manager, and an
automated management system. The offerors possess the financial
capability to successfully perform the contract and they have a
reputation of satisfactory performance. Eastern also offers the
government an extended warranty on all service call work and a
commitment to customer satisfaction by ensuring the project
manager will visit units that had after hours emergency or urgent
work performed to ensure customer satisfaction. Although All
Star's status as the incumbent is considered a strength because
they will continue to operate from their currently leased
facility and they are already mobilized, these strengths are not
considered significant to offset the cost difference. . . .
There is no quantifiable value which would support award to All
Star at $416,185.16 above that of the technically exceptional
lower priced offer submitted by Eastern."
After considering the findings of the SSAB and the technical
evaluation reports, the source selection authority (SSA) concurred,
and Eastern was awarded the contract on January 29. This protest
followed.
All Star argues that the Navy's assignment of identical ratings to
both offerors was unreasonable. All Star contends that Eastern's
proposal was not equivalent to its own under any of the
technical/management factors, and that its lack of experience in this
type of work should have merited its proposal no better than a
moderate risk rating associated with its past performance.
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, it is
not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and
in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. ESCO, Inc., 66
Comp. Gen. 404 (1987), 87-1 CPD para. 450. A protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the
evaluation unreasonable. Id. Further, source selection officials in
negotiated procurements have broad discretion in determining the
manner and extent to which they will make use of the technical and
price evaluation results subject only to the tests of rationality and
consistency with the RFP's evaluation criteria. Bunker Ramo Corp., 56
Comp. Gen. 712 (1977), 77-1 CPD para. 427; Grey Advertising, Inc., 55
Comp. Gen. 1111 (1976), 76-1 CPD para. 325. Our review of the record
shows that the agency's actions here were reasonable.
Staffing
All Star's proposal was evaluated as having five strengths under the
staffing factor: an empowered project manager; simplified
mobilization and minimized start-up risk due to its incumbency;
outstanding financial capability with respect to mobilization and
start-up; a highly experienced program manager; and the use of
subcontractors currently performing these requirements. Eastern's
proposal was evaluated as having two strengths: an empowered project
manager and the use of a subcontractor currently performing these
requirements.[2] No weaknesses or deficiencies were detected in
either proposal.
All Star argues that it should have been rated superior to Eastern
because its proposal had five identified strengths while Eastern's had
two under the staffing factor.
As a preliminary matter, as explained above, the agency did not assign
ratings to the proposals under each evaluation factor. Thus, in the
context of the evaluation methodology used here, in essence All Star
is arguing that its asserted superiority in the staffing area--as
reflected in its greater number of assigned strengths--should have
been reflected in a higher overall adjectival rating relative to
Eastern's proposal. We find this argument unpersuasive. As the
agency correctly notes, proposals were evaluated against the
evaluation factors in the RFP, not relative to each other. Thus,
there is nothing per se unreasonable about assigning the same
adjectival rating to proposals with different numbers of identified
strengths. Moreover, with respect to the ultimate selection decision,
the record shows that the decision was based not on a mechanical
application of the adjectival ratings, but on an assessment of the
relative merits of the proposals as reflected in the underlying
narrative assessments. The SSA considered the different strengths
identified in the proposals--for example, the SSA recognized that a
number of All Star's strengths derived from its incumbency--and
ultimately concluded that the additional strengths identified in All
Star's proposal did not represent a significant difference overall
between the proposals.
In sum, the record shows that the differences between the proposals
were recognized, explained, and considered; the protester's
disagreement with the SSA's judgment as to the value to the agency of
its additional strengths identified in its proposal simply is not
sufficient to show that the decision was unreasonable.
Method of Operation
All Star's proposal was evaluated as having three strengths under the
method of operation factor: it would not have to establish a new
facility; it had well-established relationships with local suppliers;
and its computer database had proven to be an asset. Eastern's
proposal was evaluated as having four strengths: it proposed to use
an automated inventory management system; its list of suppliers showed
that it had thought through its operations; it proposed a 60-day
warranty on all service call work; and it showed a desire to ensure
customer satisfaction in proposing to have its project manager visit
units that had after-hours emergency or urgent work and its quality
control representative follow up on at least some service calls. No
weaknesses or deficiencies were detected in either proposal.
All Star argues that the Navy improperly determined that Eastern's
proposal of a warranty on service calls was a strength. The protester
contends that the RFP requires rework of service calls which have been
unsatisfactorily completed and have poor workmanship at the
contractor's expense, with no time limit, and that Eastern's proposal
merely meets those requirements.
However, the Navy interpreted Eastern's proposal of a warranty on
"all" service calls to encompass not only those service calls defined
as "rework"--those which had been unsatisfactorily completed--but also
those that had been satisfactorily completed but subsequently failed.
In such cases, the warranty would entitle the government to have the
repair made during the warranty period notwithstanding acceptance of
the work. While All Star argues that Eastern's proposed warranty only
applies to "rework," the proposal clearly states that "[a]ll . . .
service call work will be guaranteed for 60 days . . . ." Under the
circumstances, we cannot find the agency's interpretation, or its
conclusion, unreasonable.[3]
Relevant Experience
The relevant experience factor addressed the adequacy of an offeror's
experience in performing work of the same or similar scope. According
to the RFP, "[r]eferences provided for this factor should be the same
or similar to the scope of work contained herein (e.g. Housing or
Residential Maintenance) including similar staffing requirements,
complexity, contract duration, contract type and dollar range."
All Star's proposal was evaluated as having a strength for its
extensive experience in base housing maintenance, particularly as the
incumbent contractor here. Each of the five projects evaluated was
for more units than required here, with a similar scope of work
(service calls, change of occupancy, appliance repair, project
management, grounds, and pest control). The Navy concluded that All
Star was unquestionably qualified to perform the work here, and that
its experience greatly reduced the risk it might fail.
Eastern's proposal was not awarded any strengths under the relevant
experience factor. Two of the seven contracts evaluated were for
military family housing maintenance, and the Navy believed that both
included work similar to that required here--service calls, project
management, change of occupancy, grounds, and janitorial. The Navy
concluded that, "[a]lthough smaller, the experience gained on these
jobs should help ensure success on this contract." The Navy also
reviewed three contracts for janitorial services and two contracts for
asbestos abatement and noted that both types of work were required as
part of this contract. The Navy considered this to be relevant
experience, but insufficient to merit a strength.
All Star has given us no reason to agree with its position that the
Navy improperly considered all of these contracts in assessing
Eastern's relevant experience. The two military family housing
maintenance contracts are obviously similar to this one, and the
remaining contracts consisted of work that will be done on this
contract and are, thus, similar. Since the Navy specifically noted
the limitations of Eastern's experience, and clearly considered All
Star to be superior here, we have no basis to question the evaluation.
Risk Rating
All Star argues that Eastern's lack of experience with military family
housing maintenance contracts should have merited its proposal no more
than a moderate risk rating associated with its past performance.
As an initial matter, the risk rating is not strictly associated with
the offeror's past performance. As noted above, the Navy based the
risk rating on an overview of the quantity or severity of weaknesses
or deficiencies in the proposal, whether they were balanced by any
strengths, and the strength of the offeror's past performance.
Moreover, the protester's argument is largely based upon its belief
that the only Eastern contracts that could have been considered were
its military family housing contracts, a belief that, as discussed
above, we do not share. In our view, the evaluators properly
contacted Eastern's references for both the military family housing
maintenance contract and one of the janitorial contracts to assess its
past performance, and used their documented findings to assess
Eastern's past performance. The references indicated that Eastern had
provided very responsive service, praised the quality of its work, and
spoke highly of Eastern's commitment to customer satisfaction. To the
extent that All Star argues that it was improper for the agency to
give its proposal and Eastern's the same low risk rating in light of
All Star's more extensive experience, the fact that both offerors
received the same risk rating does not mean that the agency viewed
them as being of equal quality. See A & W Maintenance Servs., Inc.,
B-255711, Mar. 25, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 214, recon. denied, B-255711.2,
Jan. 17, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 24. In fact, the SSA states that she
considered the minimal decreased risk associated with awarding to All
Star, but determined that it did not justify the additional cost.
Under the circumstances, we see no basis to question the low risk
rating given Eastern's proposal.
All Star finally alleges that the Navy's failure to rate each
individual factor and criterion is evidence that it did not give equal
weight to the evaluation criteria as required by the RFP, and that the
agency improperly overlooked the strengths associated with its
incumbency and experience. The mere fact that the Navy did not rate
each individual factor and criterion prior to arriving at an overall
rating does not show that the criteria were not equally weighted.
Moreover, we see no indication in the narrative assessments underlying
the overall ratings that the factors were not equally weighted, and,
in a sworn statement submitted in response to the protest, the TEP
Chairperson confirms that the factors were given equal weight. There
is also no evidence that the SSA overlooked the additional strengths
presented by All Star's proposal; in fact, the source selection
decision specifically acknowledged the strength associated with All
Star's incumbency. All Star's disagreement with the weight accorded
these strengths does not mean that they were overlooked. See MGM Land
Co.; Tony Western, B-241169; B-241169.2, Jan. 17, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 50.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The risk rating was based on the quantity or severity of weaknesses
or deficiencies, whether they were balanced by any strengths, and the
strength of the offeror's past performance. The agency used this risk
assessment, the list of strengths and weaknesses or deficiencies, and
the results of past performance interviews to arrive at an overall
adjectival rating (exceptional, acceptable, marginal, or
unacceptable). Adjectival ratings were not assigned to each criterion
or factor.
2. We are not persuaded by All Star's argument that the source
selection decision incorrectly characterized Eastern's financial
capability as an additional strength. The decision, quoted above,
merely acknowledges that both firms were financially capable, a factor
of concern to the agency with respect to the firms' ability to
mobilize.
3. All Star's argument that urgent or emergency service calls amount
to only a small portion of the contract and that Eastern should not
have been given a strength for proposing to have its project manager
follow up on these calls misses the Navy's point--that this proposal
indicated Eastern's desire to ensure customer satisfaction.