BNUMBER: B-279565.2; B-279565.3
DATE: June 26, 1998
TITLE: Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc, B-279565.2; B-
279565.3, June 26, 1998
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc
File:B-279565.2; B-279565.3
Date:June 26, 1998
Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Jerome S. Gabig, Jr., Esq., and Johana A.
Reed, Esq., Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, for the protester.
Jacob B. Pompan, Esq., and Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray,
Ruffner & Werfel, for Halifax Technical Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Richard A. Marchese, Esq., Department of Housing & Urban Development,
for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest is sustained where (1) protester argues that agency's
relative assessment of proposals improperly failed to reflect specific
beneficial features that allegedly made its proposal superior to
awardee's, (2) it appears from record that the features in fact may
have offered some significant benefit, and (3) the agency only
generally asserts that the evaluation took the features offered by all
offerors into consideration, without explaining or providing evidence
showing why the protester's proposed features did not result in a
superior score for protester's proposal under the relevant evaluation
factor.
2. Agency improperly downgraded protester's proposal relative to
awardee's based on awardee's more detailed description of proposed
elevator maintenance subcontractor's experience; since protester and
awardee proposed same subcontractor, they should have received same
score for subcontractor's experience.
DECISION
Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. (CESI) protests the Department
of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) award of a contract to Halifax
Technical Services, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DU100C000018529, for commercial facilities management services with
respect to the HUD headquarters building in Washington, D.C. CESI
challenges the evaluation results.
We sustain the protest.
The solicitation provided for award of a contract for a base year with
four 1-year options, for custodial, security, operation and
maintenance, elevator maintenance, landscape, mail, messenger,
audio-visual, moving/receiving, parking, painting, electrical, space
alteration, and locksmith services. Award was to be made on a best
value basis, with technical factors more significant than cost/price
(the contract is to contain both cost-reimbursement and fixed-price
elements). A maximum of 300 evaluation points were to be available
under two technical evaluation factors--management and plan of
operations (140 points), and experience and qualifications (160
points)--each of which included a number of subfactors. An additional
maximum of 14 extra points were available under a small business
subcontracting program evaluation factor.
HUD received proposals from Halifax, CESI and six other offerors;
Halifax's, CESI's and three other proposals were included in the
competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, the agency
requested best and final offers (BAFO). Based upon the evaluation of
BAFOs, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to
Halifax. The TEP noted that Halifax's proposal received the highest
technical score--289 points, compared to CESI's next highest 282
points--and found Halifax's proposal to be "technically superior
because it received the maximum scores in factors for which other
offerors had weaknesses." Source Selection Recommendation of February
5, 1998, at 4. Further, Halifax's evaluated cost, $45,159,742, was
slightly lower than CESI's $45,595,733. (Another proposal was
slightly lower-cost than Halifax's, but the agency determined that
this was offset by Halifax's proposal's technical superiority.) The
source selection official concurred in the TEP's recommendation and
made award to Halifax.
EVALUATION OF BENEFICIAL FEATURES
CESI argues that the evaluation of Halifax's and CESI's proposals
failed to reflect certain beneficial features of CESI's proposal which
warranted CESI's proposal being rated technically superior to
Halifax's. In this regard, although CESI's proposal received the
maximum 140 available points under the management and plan of
operations factor, Halifax's also received a near perfect rating of
139 points.
In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations, our
Office will examine the record to determine whether the agency's
judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP's stated evaluation
criteria. Engineering and Computation, Inc., B-261658, Oct. 16, 1995,
95-2 CPD para. 176 at 2-3. Where a best value evaluation approach is to
be employed, offerors have a reasonable basis for expecting technical
proposals to be evaluated and ranked in a way that reflects an
offeror's relative technical superiority over a competitor. National
Test Pilot School, B-237503, Feb. 27, 1990, 90-1 CPD para. 238 at 3-4.
This is particularly so when technical factors are weighted more
heavily than price. Tritek Corp., B-247675.2, Aug. 6, 1992, 92-2 CPD para.
82 at 5.
In order for us to find an agency's selection determination
reasonable, an agency must present adequate documentation to support
that determination. Arco Management of Washington, D.C., Inc.,
B-248653, Sept. 11, 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 173 at 3. While adjectival
ratings and point scores are useful as guides to decision-making, for
purposes of our review they must be supported by documentation of the
relative differences between proposals, their weaknesses and risks,
and the basis and reasons for the selection decision. Federal
Acquisition Regulation sec. 15.612(d)(2) (June 1997); Engineering and
Computation, Inc., supra, at 3.
We agree with the protester that the record does not establish that
HUD properly evaluated the relative merits of CESI's and Halifax's
proposals. Specifically, neither the contemporaneous evaluation
record nor the agency's response to CESI's protest adequately explains
why the two proposals were rated similarly despite the beneficial
features enumerated in CESI's proposal, which it again set forth in
its protest, Protest of March 20, 1998, at 11-12 and Attachment 3, and
again discussed at length in its comments on the agency report.
Comments of May 13, 1998, at 5-7 and Attachment 2. Instead of
providing such an explanation, or supporting documentation with the
necessary information, HUD stated conclusorily in its report that
"[a]ll information provided was considered by the TEP," that "[w]here
proposals contained various attributes which may not have been
directly called for in the solicitation, the TEP took that information
into consideration," that both CESI's and Halifax's proposals were
"excellent in this area," and that the evaluation was "in accordance
with the requirements of the RFP and . . . reasonable." Report of May
4, 1998 at 15-16. Aside from these conclusory statements, the agency
has not specifically addressed, and the record does not show, why the
specific features proposed by CESI under the management and plan of
operations factor did not warrant according CESI's proposal a
significant advantage over Halifax's under this factor.[1]
We have reviewed CESI's proposed features and find that, on their
face, they appear to be potentially beneficial to the agency such that
they reasonably could be expected to be reflected in the evaluation
results. For example, as noted in its protest, CESI stated in its
proposal that as the facilities management and maintenance subsidiary
of its corporate parent, The Charles E. Smith Companies, which owns
and manages more than 34 million square feet of office space and about
21,000 residential units, with 130 buildings in the Washington area,
CESI would have access for emergency support and other purposes to
significant additional corporate resources beyond those committed on a
full-time basis to the HUD building. CESI Proposal at E-1,
A-253/A-254. CESI specifically noted the availability of 80
radio-dispatched mobile maintenance vehicles, more than 400 skilled
building operating and crafts personnel, equipment overhaul and repair
shops, and in-house professional engineers and experts. Id. at E-1 to
E-2, A-29 to A-30, A-61 to A-62, B-5, B-11. CESI further proposed
[DELETED]. Id. at A-67, B-9. CESI, although recognizing that HUD
[DELETED], proposed to [DELETED]. Id. at A-82 to A-83; Solicitation
Clause H-6(A)(4). In addition, CESI proposed to [DELETED]. Id. at
E-1, E-8 to E-9, A-4, A-80/A-81, A-81 to A-82, A-260 to A-261, B-5 to
B-6, B-9 to B-10.
In contrast, Halifax proposed [DELETED], and proposed [DELETED].
However, there was no indication in Halifax's proposal that it would
[DELETED], comparable in scope and extent to that proposed by CESI.
Halifax Proposal at 1-11, 1-13, 1-15, 1-92 to 1-94, 1-114, 2-4 to 2-5;
Halifax BAFO of November 21, 1997, at 12, 24 to 27. Nor did Halifax
propose to [DELETED]. (Halifax instead proposed [DELETED]. Halifax
Proposal at 1-51, 1-63, 2-3.)
In the absence of a specific response from the agency explaining why
the apparently unique and potentially advantageous features of CESI's
proposed approach in the areas specified by CESI did not warrant a
higher relative score for CESI's proposal, there simply is no basis
for concluding that the agency's essentially equal assessment of the
proposals under the management and plan of operations factor was
reasonable. HUD correctly asserts that in documenting a source
selection decision, a contracting agency need not address each and
every proposed, purportedly beneficial feature of an offeror's
approach. However, where, as here, a protester challenges the
agency's evaluation conclusions, the agency must establish that it had
a reasonable basis for its conclusions. HUD has failed to do so with
regard to the evaluation of the relative merits of CESI's and
Halifax's proposals.
We emphasize that an agency is not required to give evaluation credit
for specific features where it reasonably determines that such
features will not contribute in a meaningful manner to better
satisfying the agency's stated needs. See Tecom, Inc., B-275518.2,
May 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 221 at 7 (agency reasonably concluded that
offeror not entitled to higher rating where requirements were not
exceeded in a manner that would provide increased benefit to agency);
Computer Sys. Development Corp., B-275356, Feb. 11, 1997, 97-1 CPD para.
91 at 7-8. Alternatively, an agency may reasonably determine that the
benefit of proposed specific features is not worth any additional cost
associated with the proposal. However, the record does not show that
HUD made any such determination--and HUD does not suggest that one was
made--that the above features proposed by CESI will not provide a
meaningful benefit or are not worth the additional associated cost.
EVALUATION OF EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
CESI also challenges the evaluation of the subfactor for proposed
elevator maintenance organization, under the experience and
qualifications factor. (Halifax's proposal received 150 and CESI's
142 of the available 160 points under the factor.) Although both CESI
and Halifax proposed the incumbent HUD elevator maintenance
subcontractor (Millar Elevator Service Company), 3 of 15 available
subfactor points were deducted from CESI's score--while Halifax
received all 15 points--for failure to adequately address the results
achieved (e.g., quality of service, timeliness of performance and cost
control), by Millar under prior contracts. CESI disputes the agency's
position that Halifax's proposal was superior in addressing the
results achieved by Millar, and argues that, in any case, since the
proposed subcontractor was the incumbent, the evaluators should have
been aware of its performance and capabilities.[2]
HUD reports that the members of the TEP had no personal knowledge of
the results achieved by Millar, the incumbent elevator maintenance
contractor. According to the agency, the evaluators confined their
evaluation of an offeror's proposal to the information in that
proposal. TEP Statement of May 5, 1998, at 4; TEP Response of May 13,
1998, at 8 n.1.
Although an offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written
proposal, and an agency may downgrade a proposal for lack of requested
information, Formal Management Sys., Inc., B-259824, May 3, 1995,
95-1 CPD para. 227 at 3, an agency may not ignore prior performance
information of which it is aware. International Bus. Sys., Inc.,
B-275554, Mar. 3, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 114 at 4-6; G. Marine Diesel;
Phillyship, B-232619, B-232619.2, Jan. 27, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 90 at 4;
Inlingua Schools of Languages, B-229784, Apr. 5, 1988, 88-1 CPD para. 340
at 5.
Even if HUD is correct that CESI's proposal did not provide as much
information as Halifax's regarding Millar's experience, since both
proposals offered the same subcontractor, the evaluation unreasonably
accorded the two proposals different scores in this area. Once the
agency became aware of Millar's experience--whether from Halifax's
proposal, personal knowledge, or otherwise--it could not reasonably
assign Halifax's proposal a higher score than CESI's based on that
experience. Accordingly, it appears that CESI's proposal was entitled
to the same score as Halifax's under this subfactor, for an increase
of 3 points.[3]
RECOMMENDATION
In view of Halifax's narrow, 7-point evaluated technical advantage,
and its only approximately 1-percent cost advantage, we conclude that
there is a reasonable possibility that CESI was prejudiced in the
competition by the identified evaluation deficiencies. See
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see also
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
We therefore sustain Halifax's protest. By letter of today to the
Secretary of HUD, we are recommending that the agency reevaluate
proposals consistent with our decision. If, upon reevaluation, it is
determined that Halifax's proposal does not represent the best value
to the government, we recommend that the agency terminate Halifax's
contract for convenience. We also recommend that CESI be reimbursed
the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable
attorneys' fees. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.8(d)(1)
(1998). CESI's certified claim for such costs, detailing the time and
costs incurred, should be submitted within 60 days after receipt of
this decision. 4 C.F.R. sec. 21.8(f)(1).
The protest is sustained.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. In a May 19 supplemental report, HUD again failed to provide any
specific explanation of the evaluation of CESI's proposed features.
In response to the protester's specific, subfactor-by-subfactor
discussion in its comments, with respect to the evaluation under the
management and plan of operations factor, the agency stated as
follows:
[I]n preparing its Final Report, the TEP had no obligation
to specifically address each individual "feature" included
as part of CESI's proposal. As a review of the proposals
submitted by all five offerors included within the
competitive range indicates, each proposal contained
numerous distinct "features" differing in a variety of
ways from the basic requirements of the RFP. All
"features" included within the proposals of all offerors
were considered by the TEP in conducting its evaluation.
See the TEP's individual handwritten scoresheets, which
reference the specific portions of the individual
proposals in which the TEP found information supporting
its point scores. . . . In conducting its evaluation of
the proposals, the TEP concluded that, all "features" of
all offerors considered, Halifax's proposal represented
the best value to the Government.
Supplemental Report of May 19, 1998, at 4.
2. CESI also challenges other aspects of the evaluation under the
experience and qualifications factor, as well as the evaluation of the
reasonableness of the proposed prices. Since, as discussed below, we
are recommending that the agency reevaluate proposals, these protest
grounds are academic and will not be considered. See generally VSE
Corp.--Recon. and Entitlement to Costs, B-258204.3, B-258204.4, Dec.
28, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 260 at 2; American Express Bank Ltd., B-228910,
Nov. 16, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 488 at 4.
3. CESI argues that the agency improperly failed to evaluate proposals
under the small business subcontracting program factor. The
solicitation provided in this regard that an additional "Maximum 14
Extra Technical points" were available under the small business
subcontracting program factor for "proposals that are found to be
technically acceptable or capable of being made technically
acceptable"; according to the solicitation, "[i]f the technical merit
and the evaluated cost of proposals are essentially equal, [HUD] will
use its evaluation of offerors' subcontracting plans as the
determining factor in selecting a source among otherwise substantially
equal offers." Solicitation Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award.
HUD did not evaluate proposals under this factor because it did not
find proposals to be equal with respect to the technical and cost
factors, but instead determined that Halifax's lower-cost proposal was
superior. Although CESI contends that the agency was required to
evaluate the proposed subcontracting plans in all circumstances where
a proposal was technically acceptable, we find that it was clear under
the solicitation that offerors' subcontracting plans would be
evaluated only in case of a tie under the remaining factors.