BNUMBER: B-272989
DATE: November 4, 1996
TITLE: Ameriko, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Ameriko, Inc.
File: B-272989
Date:November 4, 1996
Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for the protester.
Ross L. Crown, Esq., and Dennis E. Jontz, Esq., Kemp, Smith, Duncan &
Hammond, P.C., for Phillips National, Inc., an intervenor.
Diane D. Hayden, Esq., and V. Paul Clay, Esq., Department of the Navy,
for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that agency misevaluated awardee's proposal as superior to
protester's under experience factor is denied where record shows that
agency's conclusion reasonably was based on the fact that awardee
performed (and received "strong" reference ratings for) significantly
greater number of similar contracts than protester.
DECISION
Ameriko, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Phillips National,
Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N63387-95-R-0069, issued by
the Department of the Navy for military family housing and maintenance
services.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, for the award of a fixed-price/indefinite quantity contract,
provided that proposals would be evaluated under three factors: (1)
management/administration plan (with four subfactors), (2) contractor
experience (two subfactors), and (3) price. Each of the technical
factors and subfactors was to be given an adjectival rating of strong,
average, marginal, or unacceptable. The technical factors were
significantly more important than price.
Of the eight proposals received, Phillips's and Ameriko's were ranked
first and second, respectively, in technical merit, both receiving
strong ratings overall and for each subfactor. The agency ranked
Phillips's proposal first based on a superior quality control plan
(the second subfactor under management/administration plan), and more
extensive experience performing military family housing maintenance
contracts (the first subfactor under contractor experience). Since
Phillips's proposal also was $1.1 million lower priced than Ameriko's
($7.9 million vs $9.0 million), the agency selected Phillips for
award.
Ameriko challenges the agency's evaluation of Phillips's experience on
military family housing maintenance contracts as superior to its own.
Ameriko asserts that Phillips provided only three contract references
regarding past performance and that the agency was unable to contact
any of those references, and therefore questions how Phillips's
proposal could have been rated strong under this subfactor. Ameriko
also argues that the agency failed to give its proposal sufficient
credit for the firm's performance as the incumbent contractor for the
requested services.
Ameriko's arguments are based on incorrect facts. First, Phillips
provided references for 19 prior military family housing maintenance
contracts, not 3 as Ameriko asserts; the agency was able to contact 12
of these references; 9 rated Phillips's performance as strong and 3
average. We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's conclusion that
the high number of strong references warranted a strong rating for
Phillips's proposal under the experience factor. By the same token,
while Ameriko received strong ratings from all three references
contacted (of the five provided by Ameriko), it clearly was reasonable
for the agency to conclude that the significantly greater number of
housing maintenance contracts performed by Phillips (as well as the
greater number of strong ratings) warranted regarding Phillips's
proposal as somewhat superior to Ameriko's under the experience
factor. Finally, there is no basis for finding that Ameriko's
proposal rating improperly failed to reflect its performance as the
incumbent. The record shows that the agency contacted the reference
provided by Ameriko for its current contract, and that this was
factored into Ameriko's strong rating under corporate experience and
past performance.[1]
Ameriko also challenges the evaluation of Phillips's quality assurance
plan as superior to its own. However, even if Ameriko were correct
that its plan should have been rated equal to Phillips's, the award
decision would not change in light of our conclusion that the agency
reasonably rated Phillips's experience superior to Ameriko's, and
Phillips's lower proposed price. Indeed, even if the proposals were
rated technically equal, Phillips would remain entitled to the award
based on its lower price.[2] See PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of
Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD para.
366.[3]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The agency also points out--in response to Ameriko's argument that
as the incumbent for identical services it is uniquely qualified to
perform this contract--that Ameriko's current contract in fact covers
only 66 percent of the requirements under the current RFP.
2. Ameriko also argues that the agency did not perform a proper cost
analysis because it did not consider the transition costs associated
with having Phillips perform the contract. As transition costs were
not a stated evaluation factor, the agency was under no obligation to
consider them. See DDD Co., B-250213, Jan. 15, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 48.
Further, to the extent Ameriko argues that the agency did not consider
cost realism, the agency was not required to do so since it was
awarding a fixed-price contract. See Olin Corp., B-258113.2;
B-258113.3, Nov. 13, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 221.
3. Ameriko also complains that the agency deviated from the source
selection plan. This is not a sustainable basis of protest. See EG&G
Team, B-259917.2, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 138.