BNUMBER: B-276750
DATE: July 23, 1997
TITLE: Quality Elevator Company, Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Quality Elevator Company, Inc.
File: B-276750
Date:July 23, 1997
William H. Carroll, Esq., and George W. Ash, Esq., Dykema Gossett, for
the protester.
James A. Hughes, Esq., Patton Boggs, L.L.P., for Maryland Elevator
Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human
Services, 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
1. Protest that contracting agency's evaluation of proposals was
unreasonable because it was inadequately documented is denied; even
though the contemporaneous record contained nothing more than the
maximum point scores assigned to both offerors' proposals, the
post-protest narrative explanations provided by the agency provide
sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the evaluation,
considering the similarity between the two proposals.
2. In the award of a firm, fixed-price contract, agency's price
realism evaluation which compared the awardee's proposed price to that
of the other offeror, the current contract pricing, and the government
estimate is unobjectionable; that the award price was 14 percent below
the government estimate does not show that the awardee's price was
unreasonably low or that the price realism evaluation was inadequate.
DECISION
Quality Elevator Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to
Maryland Elevator Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
RFP-36-96-HHS-OS, issued by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) for elevator maintenance and repair services at the
agency's Hubert H. Humphrey Building in Washington, D.C. Quality
argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued January 27, 1997, anticipated the award of a
fixed-price contract for the maintenance and repair of all elevator
equipment and systems in the Humphrey Building for 1 base year, with
up to 4 option years. The Building is 7 stories high, with an
additional penthouse and mechanical floors, and is served by 16
elevators, all of which were manufactured by the U.S. Elevator
Company. Quality is the incumbent contractor.
Award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most
advantageous to the government, considering technical and price
factors. Technical factors would be more important than price, but
proposals had to be fair and reasonably priced to be selected for
award. The technical aspect of the evaluation would consider written
proposals and oral presentations, both of which would be pointscored,
with a total maximum possible score of 100 points. Business proposals
would not be scored but would be evaluated to assess the realism of
the proposed price.
Written technical proposals would be evaluated under two factors:
understanding of the scope of work (5 points) and qualifications of
the offeror (40 points). This latter factor was broken down into
three subfactors: qualifications and experience of the firm's
management staff (20 points); qualifications and experience of key
mechanical personnel to be assigned to the contract (10 points); and
past performance (10 points). Oral presentations would be evaluated
under one factor, operating plan and quality control plan (55 points),
which was broken down into numerous subfactors.
HHS received two proposals by the March 6 closing date, and the
agency's three-member evaluation team evaluated both the written
technical proposals and the oral presentations. Their individual
rating sheets show that each team member assigned each proposal 100
points--the maximum points available under each factor and
subfactor[1]--but made no substantive narrative comments pertaining to
strengths, weaknesses, or distinctions between the two offers. The
evaluation team's recommendation that award be made to Maryland, whose
proposed price of $825,120 was lower than Quality's price of
$1,002,420, was equally bereft of narrative comment. The contract
specialist concurred with this recommendation, stating that
"[t]echnical considerations were of more importance than cost, and
both firms had been ranked equal technically and it had been
determined by the contracting office that Maryland's price was more
competitive." Award was made to Maryland on April 8. Quality filed
this protest after its debriefing.
Quality primarily argues that the agency's failure to document its
evaluation of proposals renders that evaluation unreasonable. Quality
asserts that differences between the two proposals merited, at a
minimum, an explanation for the identical ratings.
While judgments concerning the evaluation of proposals are by their
nature subjective, they must be reasonable; such judgments must bear a
rational relationship to the announced criteria upon which proposals
were to be evaluated. Management Technology, Inc., B-257269.2, Nov.
8, 1994, 95-1 CPD para. 248 at 6-7. Implicit in the foregoing is that
the rationale for these judgments must be documented in sufficient
detail to show that they are not arbitrary and that there was a
reasonable basis for the selection decision. Id. Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) sec. 15.608(a)(3) requires documentation to support the
evaluation of proposals, including the basis for evaluation and an
analysis of the technically acceptable and unacceptable proposals, an
assessment of each offeror's ability to accomplish the technical
requirement, and a summary of findings. FAR sec. 15.612(d)(2) requires
supporting documentation for the source selection decision, stating
the basis and reasons for the decision and showing the relative
differences among proposals and their strengths, weaknesses, and risks
in terms of the evaluation criteria. Numerical point scores, while
useful as guides to decision-making, do not of themselves supply the
basis and reason for the award decision. U.S. Defense Sys., Inc.,
B-245563, Jan. 17, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 89 at 3; S&M Property Management,
B-243051, June 28, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 615 at 4. Where there is
inadequate supporting documentation for an award decision, we cannot
conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for the decision.
Hattal & Assocs., 70 Comp. Gen. 632, 637 (1991), 91-2 CPD para. 90 at 7.
The contract specialist states that she "does not dispute the fact
that the agency failed to comply with FAR sec. 15.608." She asserts,
however, that the proposals were properly evaluated, and HHS has
provided post-protest narrative explanations as to why the proposals
were considered to be technically equal, including rebuttals of the
distinctions that Quality alleges exist between the two proposals.
Where explanations in agency reports justifying a source selection
provide sufficient detail by which the rationality of the agency's
evaluation decision can be judged, it is possible to conclude that the
agency had a reasonable basis for the decision. Management
Technology, Inc., supra; Champion-Alliance, Inc., B-249504, Dec. 1,
1992, 92-2 CPD para. 386 at 6-7; Hydraudyne Sys. and Eng'g B.V., B-241236;
B-241236.2, Jan. 30, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 88 at 4-5. In our view, the
record here contains sufficient information to show that the
evaluation was reasonable.[2]
Quality's protest focuses on the evaluation of written technical
proposals under the qualifications factor. Quality asserts that its
proposed management and mechanical personnel have significantly more
experience working with elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator than
do Maryland's and, therefore, should have received higher ratings than
Maryland under each qualifications subfactor.
The first subfactor, qualifications and experience of the firm's
management staff, required each offeror to:
"[a]ddress corporate experience in its ability to provide
elevator maintenance and repairs required to be performed in a
large office buildings similar in size to the Humphrey Building.
There are 13 passenger and 3 freight elevators within the
building. Firm must demonstrate at least five years experience
in elevator maintenance and repair in a like environment.
Provide information on individual management officials and
capabilities in assuring compliance with all elements on this
solicitation. . . . Include at least one corporate official, a
Project Manager, and any other on-site supervisor. Define
corporate ability generally in elevator maintenance and repairs."
HHS disputes Quality's contention that specific experience with
elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator was to be a discriminator
here. The agency contends that the "like environment" described in
this provision refers to the size of the building and the number of
elevators to be serviced.[3] We agree.
Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation
requirement, we will resolve the dispute by reading the solicitation
as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all provisions of the
solicitation. Insituform East, Inc., B-272399, Oct. 3, 1996, 96-2 CPD para.
134 at 2. This provision requires offerors to discuss their corporate
experience with buildings "similar in size" to the Humphrey Building
and lists the number--but not the type--of elevators within the
Building; these statements are immediately followed by a request that
firms demonstrate their experience in a "like environment." Hence,
the term "like environment" plainly refers to the immediately
preceding description of the size of the building and the number of
its elevators. That experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured
elevators is not a discriminator here is underscored by the absence of
any reference to such experience here, and the presence of this
specific requirement in the second subfactor, discussed below. While
Quality evidently disagrees, HHS was not bound to give preference to a
firm with a type of experience not required under the solicitation.[4]
HHS states that it gave the full point value to both proposals here
because all of the management personnel proposed, by both offerors,
were certified elevator mechanics with numerous years of experience in
the elevator trade. Since Quality does not specifically address the
general experience of these individuals, and since our review of the
proposals shows virtually no distinction between the two proposals in
this regard, we find the evaluation to be reasonable.
The second subfactor, qualifications and experience of key mechanical
personnel, required offerors to "demonstrate experience including
specific experience on US Elevator systems and the operations of these
specific type elevators."
While HHS agrees with Quality that specific experience with U.S.
Elevator-manufactured elevators was to be considered here, the agency
notes that it was not the sole consideration. Quality's view to the
contrary notwithstanding, we agree with the agency, given the
provision's specific requirement to demonstrate experience "including"
that with elevators manufactured by U.S. Elevator.
HHS states that both proposals were given full point value here
because the mechanic and back-up mechanics proposed by both firms were
all certified elevator mechanics and each mechanic had specific
experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators.
The record shows that Maryland's proposed mechanic once worked for
U.S. Elevator installing and adjusting elevators and is currently
responsible for servicing a building containing at least one U.S.
Elevator-manufactured elevator. One of Maryland's two back-up
mechanics is currently responsible for servicing a building containing
at least one U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevator, and the other
back-up mechanic has maintained U.S. Elevator equipment in the past.
The resumes of all three men show that each has extensive additional
elevator maintenance experience. The record further shows that
Quality's proposed mechanic once worked for U.S. Elevator installing
and adjusting elevators, attended U.S. Elevator training school, and
is the current mechanic for this contract. None of the resumes of
Quality's three "first echelon" field engineers proposed as back-up
mechanics makes reference to U.S. Elevator experience. Like the
mechanics proposed by Maryland, the resumes of all of these
individuals show that each has extensive additional elevator
maintenance experience.
While Quality appears to argue that the fact its proposed mechanic has
been maintaining the U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators at issue
here dictates a higher rating, the agency has reviewed the totality of
experience presented in these proposals, in accordance with the
solicitation, and concluded otherwise. In the absence of any specific
argument concerning the overall experience of these mechanics,
Quality's disagreement with this conclusion does not render the
evaluation unreasonable.[5]
With respect to the evaluation of oral presentations, Quality simply
argues that its operating plan and quality control plan, the subjects
of the oral presentation, were longer and more detailed than
Maryland's and, as a result, deserved a higher rating. Our review of
these plans, which, pursuant to the solicitation, are contained in the
written technical proposals and as an extensive outline appended to
these proposals, shows no substantive distinctions between the two.
Accordingly, and in the absence of any specific objection to the
evaluation, we have no basis to dispute the agency's claim that both
presentations were judged to be superior because both described their
plans in detail and "it was obvious that both offerors had long
experience in the field and were prepared to handle both routine
maintenance and correction of deficiencies with a high degree of
efficiency."[6]
Quality finally argues that HHS conducted an unduly cursory price
realism analysis of Maryland's proposal. The protester asserts that
Maryland's price, 14 percent below the government estimate, was
unreasonably low.
The depth of an agency's price realism analysis is a matter within the
sound exercise of the agency's discretion. Cardinal Scientific, Inc.,
B-270309, Feb. 12, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 70 at 4. The FAR provides a
number of price analysis techniques that may be used to determine
whether prices are reasonable and realistic, including a comparison of
the prices received with each other and comparison of proposed prices
with an independent government estimate. FAR sec. 15.805-2. HHS
compared Maryland's pricing with Quality's proposed pricing, with the
current pricing, and with the government estimate. The agency found
that Maryland's proposal showed that it would conform with the current
wage determination, and that, though slightly below current pricing,
the amounts proposed would be adequate to cover the required items
(like stocking of additional parts) in addition to labor. Given the
agency's utilization of the techniques provided under the FAR, we have
no basis to challenge its conclusion; the mere fact that Maryland's
total price was 14 percent below the government estimate is not a
basis for finding the price realism evaluation inadequate. EC Corp.,
B-266165.2, Feb. 20, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 153 at 4 n.2, citing Birch &
Davis Assocs., Inc.--Protest and Request for Recon., B-246120.3,
B-246120.4, Apr. 20, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 372 at 6-7 (price realism
evaluation adequate even though award price was 24 percent below
government estimate).
In conclusion, while HHS failed to adequately document its evaluation,
the post-protest explanations were adequate under the circumstances of
this procurement. The record indicates that relatively little
documentation was required because the proposals were very similar and
the agency, therefore, reasonably found the proposals technically
equal. Champion-Alliance, Inc., supra, at 7. In view of the
undisputed indications in the record that the proposals were
essentially the same, and in the absence of any specific evidence to
the contrary, we find that HHS had a reasonable basis for its
conclusions. Id. Since price can become the determining factor
between proposals that have been evaluated as technically equal in a
"best value" award decision, Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, supra, we have
no basis to challenge the agency's award decision.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. While one of the three evaluators of Maryland's oral presentation
assigned it slightly less than the maximum score, the subsequent
contemporaneous documentation and post-protest agency filings show
that HHS considered both proposals to have merited the maximum score.
The overriding concern in these matters is not whether the final
ratings are consistent with earlier, individual ratings, but whether
they accurately reflect the relative merits of the proposals. See
Household Data Servs., Inc., B-259238.2, Apr. 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 281
at 4 n.2.
2. Quality also argues that proposals were improperly evaluated under
the assumption that award was to be made to the lowest-priced,
technically acceptable proposal, and not to the proposal offering the
best value to the government. This allegation is understandable,
given various fragments of unrelated language contained in the agency
report in combination with the paucity of contemporaneous narrative.
However, as discussed below, our review of the record shows that the
agency properly turned to price as a determinative factor after
concluding that both proposals had equivalent technical merit. See
Ogilvy, Adams & Rinehart, B-246172.2, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 332 at
5.
3. Quality does not dispute that the two proposals are relatively
equal with respect to corporate or individual experience in buildings
similar in size and number of elevators to the Humphrey Building.
4. Quality's similar argument that the past performance factor
required experience with U.S. Elevator-manufactured elevators fails
for similar reasons--the solicitation did not include such a
requirement. As for the protester's argument that HHS improperly
failed to give it full credit for its past performance, the record
shows that it received the maximum score.
5. Quality also asserts that one evaluator's view was "tainted" by his
discovery, during the course of the procurement, that Quality's
mechanic would remain on the job if the contract were awarded to
another firm. Since the evaluator states that he did not evaluate
Maryland's proposal based upon its hiring of the incumbent mechanic,
but on the basis of the personnel it proposed, and since the record
discloses no substantive distinction between the two proposals in this
respect, we do not share Quality's view that the evaluation was
"tainted."
6. Quality also complains that the oral presentations of the two
offerors were not evaluated by the same three evaluators, allowing for
"inconsistency." The agency explains that the change in evaluators
was due to scheduling conflicts that arose after the date for
Quality's oral presentation--originally scheduled for the same date as
Maryland's--was extended at Quality's request. In the absence of any
substantive argument to show that the evaluators' conclusions were
unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation, we have no basis
to object to the agency's use of different evaluators under these
circumstances. See Innovative Logistics Techniques, Inc., B-275786.2,
Apr. 2, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 144 at 9.