BNUMBER: B-272524
DATE: October 21, 1996
TITLE: Intown Properties, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Intown Properties, Inc.
File: B-272524
Date:October 21, 1996
Melton Harrell for the protester.
Mary C. Merchant, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development,
for the agency.
John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the
competitive range where the proposal was considered technically
inferior to all of the competitive range proposals, and its price was
substantially higher than two of the four competitive range proposals.
DECISION
Intown Properties, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from
the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.
H06R95006700000, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for real estate asset manager (REAM) services.
Intown challenges a number of alleged weaknesses listed by agency
technical evaluators in the firm's proposal and argues that the
evaluation process was "superficial" and included numerous other
flaws.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price, indefinite
quantity contract for 1 year and 3 option years. Award was to be made
to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to the
solicitation and was most advantageous to the government, price and
other factors considered. The RFP listed as technical evaluation
factors (1) staff; (2) management plan; and (3) past/current contract
performance and prior experience, and stated that the combined merit
of these factors would be more significant than price in the selection
decision.
The agency received 15 proposals in response to the RFP. The
contracting officer established a competitive range of four proposals,
with the following technical scores and prices for the base and option
years:
Technical scores Prices
100 $10,102,800
100 $12,559,400
95 $29,294,080
87 $24,252,580
Intown's proposal, priced at $23,250,240 and assigned a technical
score of 76, was considered unacceptable. The agency ultimately
awarded a contract to Golden Feather Realty Services, Inc. at a price
of $9,310,800.
The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether
a particular offer is in the competitive range are matters within the
discretion of the contracting agency, since it is responsible for
defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Crown
Logistics Servs., B-253740, Oct. 19, 1993, 93-2 CPD para. 228. In
reviewing challenges to an agency's competitive range determination,
our Office does not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we
examine the evaluation to determine whether it was reasonable and in
accordance with the solicitation criteria. Id.
Intown's challenge to the evaluation focuses on a number of criticisms
by agency evaluators concerning the firm's proposal. For instance,
under the staff evaluation factor, on which Intown was assigned 50 out
of 60 possible points, the evaluators commented that "[s]ome of the
key personnel will only be assigned to this contract for one month."
Intown argues that this comment, while true, ignores the permanent
assignment of several key personnel to the contract. Intown also
argues that no firm, except the incumbent, can have staff standing by
and available for this contract.
The agency explains that the evaluators were concerned with Intown's
plan to assign some key personnel to the contract for 1 month and then
replace them. The evaluators believed this arrangement could create a
lack of continuity, that there would be insufficient time to establish
a working relationship with HUD, and that the replacement staff would
not have appropriate knowledge and experience.
We have no basis to conclude that the evaluators' concerns were
unreasonable. First, although Intown states that the evaluators
ignored the permanent assignment of several key personnel to the
contract, since the criticism focused on "some" key personnel, we
think it is implicit that the evaluators recognized that other key
personnel would be permanently assigned. Moreover, Intown concedes
that it proposed to assign staff to the contract and then to replace
those personnel a month later. While Intown maintains that this is
the only arrangement available to it, this does not respond to the
concerns of the evaluators about continuity and the experience and
knowledge of the replacement staff. We agree with the evaluators that
these are legitimate concerns that justify the decision to assign the
firm less than the full points available under the staffing evaluation
factor.
Under the management plan evaluation factor, the evaluators commented
on Intown's proposal:
"The offeror's plan just repeats the solicitation without giving
specifics.
. . . . .
"Offeror does not understand the full scope of the solicitation
because they do not give details of their plan of action."
The agency explains that the evaluators were concerned that Intown's
management plan was generic and it did not accurately reflect the
solicitation requirements for Texas, where the work is to be
performed. For these reasons, and others, the evaluators assigned
Intown's proposal a score of 12 of a possible 25 points for this
factor.
Noting that the management plan included in its proposal was 59-pages
long, Intown argues it is not true that its plan just repeats the
solicitation. According to the protester, its management plan covers
all aspects of the duties outlined in the RFP and is based on the
firm's experience as an REAM contractor in Texas and other states.
Intown also challenges the criticism that its management plan is not
detailed and argues that, even if the plan lacked details, it is
unreasonable to assume that the firm does not understand the work
since Intown has many years of REAM experience managing many thousands
of houses. In addition, Intown argues that the evaluators deducted an
unreasonable number of points from the total available points to it
under the management plan evaluation factor.
Although Intown's management plan appears to us to address many, if
not all, of the duties required under the contract, in some areas,
such as the initial inspection of assigned properties, the plan is not
even as detailed as the RFP statement of work. In addition, our
review reveals that the plan is generic and was not prepared
specifically for this solicitation. For instance, although Intown's
proposal stated that initial pest control inspections would be at the
contractor's expense, the agency points out that this was the
procedure under a previous contract, but not under this solicitation.
We think that, based on this proposal statement, the evaluators could
reasonably question the offeror's understanding of the requirements of
this contract.
Also, to the extent Intown expected to rely on its performance of
previous contracts to demonstrate its capability, it did so at its own
risk. In negotiated procurements, since the agency's technical
evaluation of proposal quality generally is based upon information
submitted with the proposal, the burden is on the offeror to submit an
adequately written proposal. See Will-Burt Co., B-250626.2, Jan. 25,
1993, 93-1 CPD para. 61. Under the circumstances, while the protester
disagrees with the evaluators' conclusions regarding its management
plan and asserts that its proposal should have received a higher score
on that factor, Intown has not provided any basis to establish that
its evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the
solicitation's evaluation criteria.
Under the past performance evaluation factor, Intown notes that one of
the individual evaluator score sheets for its proposal includes no
points and questions whether its proposal was assigned any points by
that evaluator for that factor. Although one evaluator's score sheet
included no points for Intown's proposal under the past performance
evaluation factor, the other three evaluators did assign individual
scores and the overall, "consensus" score assigned to Intown's
proposal for that factor is essentially an average of those three
individual scores. This procedure is consistent with that used
throughout the evaluation and the missing score resulted in no penalty
to Intown.
Although Intown raises various other matters concerning the technical
evaluation of its proposal, we find nothing in the evaluation that is
arbitrary, improper or inconsistent with the RFP. As a result, we
conclude that the evaluation and scoring of Intown's proposal was
reasonable.
We also conclude that the contracting officer reasonably excluded
Intown's proposal from the competitive range. The competitive range
consists of all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being
selected for award, and generally includes proposals that are
technically acceptable or reasonably susceptible of being made
acceptable through discussions. American Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
B-257297, Sept. 8, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 97. However, even a technically
acceptable proposal may be excluded from the competitive range if,
based upon the array of technical ratings actually obtained by the
offerors and consideration of proposed prices, the proposal does not
stand a real chance of being selected for award. The Cadmus Group,
Inc., B-241372.3, Sept. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 271. We will not disturb
a determination to exclude a proposal from the competitive range
unless the record indicates that the determination was unreasonable.
Motorola, Inc., B-247937.2, Sept. 9, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 334.
Intown's proposal, which was considered unacceptable, was assigned a
score of 76, compared to the four competitive range proposals which
received scores of 87, 95, 100, and 100. In addition, in the view of
agency officials, Intown's proposal would require substantial
rewriting to become acceptable. Moreover, Intown's price was
considerably higher than those of the two proposals with technical
scores of 100. Since Intown's proposal was considered technically
inferior to all of the competitive range proposals, and in light of
the firm's high price, there was no reason to believe that the firm
had a reasonable chance for award. Under the circumstances, the
agency's exclusion of Intown's proposal from the competitive range is
not legally objectionable.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States