BNUMBER:  B-277546 
DATE:  October 27, 1997
TITLE: Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Services, Inc., B-277546, October 27,
1997
**********************************************************************

Matter of:Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Services, Inc.

File:     B-277546

Date:October 27, 1997

Louis A. Serrone for the protester.
Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., and J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan 
& Worcester, for PM Realty Group, Ltd., an intervenor.
Barry D. Segal, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation requiring 
offerors to demonstrate experience in acquisition and delivery of 
lease space in major markets where solicitation defined "major 
markets" as "cities" listed elsewhere in the solicitation and 
specifically identified suburban areas--including Northern Virginia 
and Long Island--that could be considered "major markets" for the 
purposes of evaluation; protester's assumption that suburban area of 
Kansas City would be considered a "major market" was unreasonable and 
inconsistent with the definition and usage of that term in the 
solicitation.

DECISION

Cohen-Esrey Real Estate Services, Inc. protests the award of contracts 
to Equis Corporation and PM Realty Group, Ltd., under request for 
proposals (RFP) No. GS-02P-96-CVD-0006, issued by the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for real estate services.  The protester asserts 
that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal in a manner 
inconsistent with the provisions of the RFP.

GSA is responsible for the assignment and utilization of space by all 
federal agencies, and the acquisition of space by lease to house those 
agencies; GSA issued the RFP on November 29, 1996, for services to 
assist the agency in acquiring leasehold interests in real property, 
as well as other pre- and post-acquisition realty services.  For 
purposes of the solicitation, the agency divided its 11 regions into 4 
zones, providing for the award of one or more fixed-price, indefinite 
delivery, indefinite quantity contracts in each zone, for a 3-year 
base period, with a right of cancellation after the first and second 
years and two 1-year options.  The solicitation required offerors to 
submit separate technical and price proposals for each zone for which 
they desired to compete; pertinent here are the competition and 
proposals submitted for award of contracts for services in the Central 
Zone, consisting of GSA regions 5, 6, and 8--the Chicago, Kansas City, 
and Denver regions.

The RFP, as issued, consisted of five sections, in addition to 
appendices.  These sections were as follows:  I, General Information; 
II, Scope of Work; III, Pricing Structure; IV, Qualifications of the 
Offeror; and V, Evaluation Methodology.  Section I provided general 
information on the agency's mission, the general scope of the 
solicitation, and the procurement process; section II summarized the 
effort.  Section III instructed offerors on pricing lease acquisition 
services and menu services and contained information on estimated work 
load.  These instructions advised offerors of limitations on the 
accuracy of the estimates; they also contained a listing of the 
primary areas of work load, by zone and GSA region.

Section V notified potential competitors that the agency intended to 
select for award those proposals representing the greatest overall 
value, price and technical factors considered; technical factors, in 
descending order of importance, were as follows:  experience and past 
performance (60 percent); organizational approach (30 percent); and 
small business participation (10 percent).  The solicitation further 
advised offerors that the combined weight of these technical factors 
would be significantly more important than price.

As originally issued, section IV of the solicitation, Qualifications 
of the Offeror, contained a minimum requirement for 5 years experience 
in providing real estate services similar to the required effort.  To 
meet this requirement, the RFP directed offerors to submit 
descriptions of five "projects" performed within the prior 5 years, 
demonstrating ability "to acquire and deliver lease space both for 
small (less than 10,000 square feet) and large (greater than 10,000 
square feet) requirements, . . . in both urban and remote locations, 
and to perform lease administration services."  This experience was 
referred to as experience in the five major service areas--that is, 
small, large, urban, and rural leasing and lease administration.  
Offerors were to submit a narrative description, describing the work 
performed, and explaining how the client's needs were met in terms of 
space and service delivery, timeliness of service, and price, as well 
as the names and telephone numbers of clients and building owners and 
dates of performance.

By February 21, 1997, GSA had received 96 offers from 67 companies, 
and the agency referred them to a source selection evaluation board 
(SSEB) for evaluation.  Upon reviewing the proposals, the SSEB 
concluded that it would be necessary to clarify the submittal 
requirements and evaluation criteria relative to experience and past 
performance, to ensure a consistent evaluation across all four zones.  
Accordingly, the agency issued amendment No. 3 to the solicitation, 
which contained a more precise statement of the information required 
by section IV.

Among other things, the amendment required offerors to identify five 
"specific transactions," rather than "projects," performed within the 
zone for which the proposal was submitted.  Offerors were to identify 
transactions demonstrating their experience in the 5 major service 
areas and 12 specific service disciplines.  The amendment provided a 
more precise definition of the 5 major services areas and directed 
offerors to identify the major service area to which each transaction 
applied.  Specifically, where the solicitation had initially referred 
to the ability to acquire and deliver lease space "in both urban and 
remote locations," the amendment distinguished between "major markets" 
and "non-major markets."  These "major markets" were defined as "those 
cities identified in Section III, Page 8 of the solicitation . . . as 
the primary areas of workload for each of the four zones."  RFP 
section IV.1.  The referenced section of the RFP, section III, page 8, 
identified the primary areas of work load within the Central Zone as 
follows:  in region 5, Chicago, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, 
and Minneapolis/St. Paul; in region 6, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, 
Kansas City, Omaha, St. Louis, Topeka, and Wichita; and in region 8, 
Denver and Salt Lake City.  The amendment also advised offerors that 
they did not need to demonstrate performance of all the disciplines or 
major service areas but would have to demonstrate experience in a 
majority and that evaluators would consider the offeror's overall 
experience in the evaluation.

The agency provided the amendment to offerors by letter dated April 
16.  It advised offerors not to submit responses to the amendment 
until best and final offers (BAFO).  In a letter of that same date 
accompanying the amendment, the agency advised the protester of 
weaknesses and deficiencies in its proposal.  Specifically, the agency 
advised Cohen-Esrey that it had failed to provide all of the 
information necessary to demonstrate its qualifications in the areas 
of experience and past performance, particularly the protester's 
experience in all major service areas.  The agency advised the 
protester to consider the information provided in amendment No. 3, to 
ensure that it had provided the information required.  

On May 16, the agency received BAFOs.  Of 19 firms that had submitted 
proposals for the Central Zone, 14 submitted BAFOs.  After review of 
these BAFOs, the SSEB concluded that eight were technically 
unacceptable; two proposals were not considered competitive.[1]  PM 
Realty, which submitted the lowest price ($1,588,777), was ranked 
second technically (with a score of 6.4 on a 10-point scale) and the 
SSEB recommended that offeror for one of the awards.  For the 
remaining award, the SSEB noted that the two lower-priced proposals, 
including the protester's, had received much lower technical scores 
than the proposal of Equis Corporation and recommended that offeror's 
proposal for award despite its higher price.[2]  By letter dated July 
3, 1997, the agency notified Cohen-Esrey of its selection decision, 
and after receiving a debriefing on July 9, Cohen-Esrey filed this 
protest with our Office.

The protester contends that the evaluation of the experience portion 
of its technical proposal was unreasonable.  Under the experience 
factor, Cohen-Esrey's proposal received 3 out of 10 available raw 
points, equating to an adjectival rating of "fair."[3]  This score 
reflects the agency's conclusion that Cohen-Esrey failed to 
demonstrate experience in the acquisition and delivery of lease space 
in major markets, one of the five major service areas listed in the 
RFP.  Specifically, the protester described a project to lease space 
in Overland Park, Kansas; although the solicitation listed Kansas City 
as a major market, the evaluators did not treat Overland Park as a 
major market.  Cohen-Esrey contends that this determination was 
unreasonable, since, according to the protester, Overland Park is a 
submarket of the Kansas City metropolitan area, the second largest of 
nine submarkets, and exceeded in size only by the Kansas City central 
business district.

The agency responds that amendment No. 3 clearly defined "major 
markets" as the "cities" identified in section III, page 8 of the RFP.  
Since Overland Park is not one of the listed cities, the agency 
argues, it cannot be considered a "major market" for purposes of the 
evaluation.

Where an evaluation is challenged, we will examine the evaluation only 
to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation 
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since the relative 
merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter of administrative 
discretion.  Tecom, Inc., B-275518.2, May 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  221 at 
4.  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.  Quality Elevator Co., Inc., B-276750, July 23, 1997, 
97-2 CPD  para.  28 at 5.  Here, as the agency notes, the solicitation 
specifically referred to the "major markets" as "cities."   Further, 
our review of the RFP shows that where the agency was willing to 
consider experience in greater metropolitan areas, the RFP 
specifically identified the areas outside the listed cities that would 
be considered; thus, for example, the list of "major markets" at 
section III, page 8 of the RFP included Northern Virginia, Suburban 
Maryland, and Long Island under the solicitation for the East Zone.  
Based on the language of the RFP, we conclude that it would not be 
reasonable to assume, as Cohen-Esrey apparently did, that other cities 
located near the listed cities, but not themselves specifically listed 
in the RFP, would be considered major markets.  Accordingly, we see no 
basis to object to the agency's treatment of Overland Park as not a 
major market for the purposes of evaluating experience.

The protester also asserts that, at the debriefing, it was informed 
that the evaluators had not given Cohen-Esrey credit for lease 
administration experience, 1 of the 12 service disciplines listed in 
the RFP for which offerors were asked to demonstrate their experience.  
The protester states that it documented such experience in its 
proposal, in performance of services for two insurance companies.  The 
determination that the protester did not have lease administration 
experience, the protester argues, was incorrect and resulted in an 
unreasonably low technical score.

The agency states that the protester received incorrect information at 
the debriefing, and that the evaluators did, in fact, recognize 
Cohen-Esrey's experience in lease administration.  The evaluation 
sheets contain a checklist for the specific service disciplines to be 
considered in the evaluation of experience; our review of these sheets 
indicates that, as the agency represents, the evaluators checked the 
block indicating that the protester had experience in lease 
administration under its transactions for U.S. Life Insurance and 
Equitable Life, the two transactions for which Cohen-Esrey claimed 
such experience.  This determination is not reflected, however, in the 
final SSEB report itself which, at page 3, states that Cohen-Esrey did 
not demonstrate experience in lease administration.[4]  

Despite this inconsistency in the evaluation record, it is clear that, 
even assuming that Cohen-Esrey should have been but was not given 
credit for lease administration experience, its proposal's score would 
not change.  As noted above, the RFP called for offerors to 
demonstrate experience in 5 major service areas and 12 service 
disciplines. The source selection plan stated that if an offeror 
demonstrated experience in 50 percent of the real estate services 
outlined in the RFP, its proposal then would be evaluated according to 
the degree of experience it demonstrated in the major service areas 
and disciplines.  Thus, the evaluation standards provided for 
different scores for experience in performing all major service areas 
and all service disciplines (excellent); all major service areas and 
more than a majority of the service disciplines (good); and a majority 
of the service disciplines (fair).[5]  Neither in its protest or its 
proposal has Cohen-Esrey claimed experience in 2 of the 12 service 
disciplines (real estate tax appeals and successful subleasing of 
vacant office space).  Accordingly, including lease administration, 
Cohen-Esrey should have received credit for experience in 10 of the 12 
disciplines; excluding lease administration, for 9 of the 12--in both 
cases a majority.  Any failure by the SSEB to recognize Cohen-Esrey's 
experience in lease administration had no material effect on the 
evaluation, since the source selection plan distinguishes only between 
performance of a majority and performance of all the disciplines, not 
between performance of 9 versus 10 disciplines.  With respect to the 
other component of the experience score--experience in major service 
areas--as discussed above, the agency reasonably concluded that 
Cohen-Esrey failed to demonstrate experience in a major market, one of 
the major service areas.  Given that Cohen-Esrey did not demonstrate 
experience in all the major service areas, and did demonstrate 
experience in most, but not all, of the service disciplines whether 
lease administration was counted or not, its offer properly was scored 
in the fair range under the evaluation scheme set out in the source 
selection plan.[6]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. That is, they were higher priced than other proposals that received 
a higher technical score.

2. Specifically, Cohen-Esrey's proposal received a score of 3.9, at a 
proposed price of $2,300,601, compared to the 6.6 points given to 
Equis Corporation's proposal, at a proposed price of $2,935,810.

3. According to the source selection plan, each of the evaluation 
factors--experience, past performance, organizational approach, and 
small business participation--was assigned 10 raw points.  The raw 
scores then were adjusted by a multiplier reflecting the relative 
weights of each of the factors.  The adjectival ratings corresponded 
to the raw scores as follows:  7-10 points, excellent; 4-6 points, 
good; 1-3 points, fair; and 0 points, poor.

4. This report apparently was based on the handwritten "write-up" 
accompanying the evaluators' checklists.  This document itself is 
internally inconsistent, stating both that Cohen-Esrey had not 
demonstrated any experience in administration and that the two 
projects Cohen-Esrey listed to demonstrate such experience had been 
evaluated.

5. This plan was consistent with the RFP, which required performance 
only of a majority of the service areas and disciplines but advised 
offerors that evaluators would consider how many of them a proposal 
addressed.  

6. In fact, the proposal received the highest score available in that 
range--three points on a scale of one to three.