TITLE:  Housing Services, Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-281352.14
DATE:  May 7, 1999
**********************************************************************
Housing Services, Inc., B-281352.14, May 7, 1999

Decision

Matter of: United Housing Services, Inc.

File: B-281352.14

Date: May 7, 1999

Glenn B. Stearns for the protester.

Bruce M. Kasson, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the
agency.

Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of this decision.

DIGEST

Agency reasonably determined not to include a proposal in the competitive
range where the proposal reasonably received an unacceptable rating with a
significantly lower evaluation score than the proposals in the competitive
range.

DECISION

United Housing Services, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from
the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-21230,
issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
management and marketing services for single family properties.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued on August 17, 1998, contemplated the award of up to 16
fixed-price, indefinite-quantity contracts, covering 16 geographic areas,
for 1 year with 4 option years. RFP Cover Letter at 1, sect.sect. B, M.VI. Offerors
could submit proposals for one or more geographic areas. RFP sect. M.IV(a), at
205. Each geographic area falls under one of four regional Home Ownership
Centers (HOC) based in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver and Santa Ana,
California. RFP sect. B.II, at 2-4. The Santa Ana HOC is divided into six areas;
Area 1, the subject of United's protest, consists of 11 counties in southern
California. Id. at 4.

The RFP stated that the technical factors were more significant than price.
RFP sect.sect. M.III, M.V.A, at 205-06. The technical proposal was to be limited to
a maximum of 100 one-sided pages. RFP sect. L.IX.D, at 196. The RFP set out the
following technical factors and their weight on a 150-point scale: Prior
Experience - 50 points; Past Performance - 40 points; Management Capability
and Quality Control - 30 points; Subcontract Management - 20 points; and
Small Business Subcontracting - 10 points (this factor would be evaluated
only for otherwise technically acceptable proposals). RFP sect.sect. M.VII, M.VIII,
at 206-08.

Price was to be determined primarily by applying the offeror's proposed
fixed-price factor to the sale or rental price of each property. RFP
sect.sect. B.III, B.IV, at 4-6. Evaluated price was calculated by applying proposed
price factors for each contract line item to a formula stated in the RFP.
RFP sect. M.IX, at 208.

Initial proposals were due by October 20. RFP amend. 0001, at 1. The agency
evaluated proposals, and assigned numerical ratings and adjectival risk
ratings. Agency Report, exh. 20B, Contracting Officer's Statement, at 3. The
agency established a competitive range for Area 1 of the Santa Ana HOC that
included all of the technically acceptable proposals. Agency Report, exh. 8,
Competitive Range Determination, at 2, 5th attach., at 1. These three
proposals received risk ratings ranging from low to moderate, and total
numerical scores ranging from 82 to 105 (92 to 111.9 including the scores
for the small business subcontracting factor). Id.

United's proposal was considered to be deficient and to require an extensive
rewrite to allow it to be considered acceptable, essentially because it
failed to provide sufficient information, most particularly information that
would have demonstrated an understanding of the RFP requirements under the
management capability and quality control factor. Agency Report, exhs. 6A,
7, Initial Evaluation Report and Addendum. United's proposal received a high
risk rating and a total numerical score of 62, and its price fell within the
range of the evaluated prices of the competitive range proposals. Agency
Report, exh. 6A, Initial Evaluation Report, at 7th unnumbered page.

By letter of November 13, HUD notified United that its proposal had been
eliminated from further consideration and that the agency would not conduct
debriefings until after award. Agency Report, exh. 9. Following discussions
with the competitive range offerors, HUD awarded a contract for this area to
Golden Feather Realty Services on February 1, 1999. Contracting Officer's
Statement at 3. On February 4, HUD provided a written debriefing to United,
which presented in detail the evaluators' findings with regard to United's
proposal. Id. at 4; Agency Report, exh. 19, Letter from Contracting Officer
to United (Feb. 4, 1999). This protest followed.

United challenges numerous findings in HUD's evaluation of its technical
proposal, essentially alleging that United's proposal provided sufficient
information to be considered technically acceptable, given the 100-page
limitation on technical proposals, and should have been included in the
competitive range and that United should have been given the opportunity to
provide additional information. Protest at 3-4.

Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the
contracting officer is to establish a competitive range comprised of all of
the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for
purposes of efficiency. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.306(c)(1).
In reviewing protests of competitive range determinations, our Office will
not reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to determine
whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated
evaluation criteria. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., B-280993,

Dec. 17, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 151 at 3; SDS Petroleum Prods., Inc., B-280430,
Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 4. The technical evaluation of a proposal is
based on information submitted in it, and an offeror runs the risk of having
its proposal downgraded and rejected if the proposal submitted is
inadequately written. HSQ Tech., B-279707, July 9, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 13 at 5.

Our review confirms that the agency reasonably concluded that United's
proposal lacked sufficient detail and was unacceptable. For example, under
the first two factors, experience and past performance, where United's
proposal received half of the points available under each factor, although
the proposal provided information which the evaluators identified as
relevant and for which United received credit in the evaluation, the
information included lacked detail, such as specific job functions and
responsibilities, and some contracting information presented for past
performance was not current (i.e., within the last 3 years as required by
the RFP sect.sect. L.IX.F.2, at 197, M.VII, at 207). Thus, the agency reasonably
concluded that United's proposal did not provide sufficient information to
warrant higher scores. See Agency Report, exhs. 6A, 7, 19. Our review of
higher-rated proposals reveals that they included much greater detail and
that they related the experience and past performance of the offeror to the
RFP requirements.[1]

The lack of information in United's proposal was even more pronounced under
the other technical factors. For example, under management capability and
quality control, the RFP instructed offerors to provide evidence of the
offeror's ability to execute the contract, to demonstrate a clear
understanding of the magnitude of the contract requirements and of its
ability to manage the work required, and to include a detailed work flow
plan and quality control plan that specifically addresses key
duties/functions. RFP sect. L.IX.F.3, at 197. The RFP stated that
unsubstantiated statements of compliance would be technically unacceptable.
RFP sect. L.IX.E, at 196. The technical evaluation report on United's proposal
(and the written debriefing provided to United) concluded that United's
proposal essentially restated the statement of work, did not detail how the
offeror plans to perform primary services required by the RFP, and did not
demonstrate a complete understanding of the contract requirements. Agency
Report, exh. 7, United Addendum, at 3rd unnumbered page, exh. 19, Letter
from the Contracting Officer to United enclosure, at 4th unnumbered page
(Feb. 4, 1999).

Our review confirms, and United does not deny, that its proposal essentially
restated large portions of the RFP. For example, the work flow plan
(United's Proposal at 59-82), though lengthy, provided very little
information that was not taken directly from, or was not a restatement of,
the RFP. As such, this portion of the proposal does not rise above a general
statement that United will comply with the stated requirements, and is not
an adequate substitute for detailed information necessary to establish how
an offeror proposes to meet the agency's needs. See Ervin & Assocs., Inc.,
supra, at 6. Here too, our review of the competitive range proposals reveals
that they did not merely restate the RFP.

Other weaknesses or deficiencies which the evaluators identified in United's
proposal include a failure to address how United intended to manage the
performance of its subcontractors and, in some cases where the proposal did
not restate the RFP, the proposal contradicted stated RFP requirements.
Agency Report, exhs. 6A, 7, 19.

The protester contends that the concern about subcontract management is
unreasonable because its proposal states that its "Project Manager shall
administer the subcontracting program"[2]

and that "United shall utilize the services of a qualified external audit
team to ensure quality of project services." Comments at 5. United also
contends that its ability to manage subcontractors can be inferred from its
experience on large contracts covering large geographic areas. Protest at 2.
Furthermore, United claims that the contradictions in its proposal are minor
and/or attributable to requirements in prior versions of the RFP. Comments
at 5.

We fail to see how the above-quoted general statements in United's proposal
can be said to demonstrate its proposed plan for managing subcontracts,
particularly since United proposes to subcontract for the property
management services, which is a significant and primary function of this
RFP. Nor can we dismiss as immaterial the contradictions between the
proposal and the stated requirements, given that the proposal's wholesale
restatement of the RFP provides little else for the agency to evaluate under
the management capability and quality control factor.

It is an offeror's responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate the merits of
its proposal within the established page limits, and the offeror must accept
the risk of rejection if

it fails to do so. Ervin & Assocs., Inc., supra, at 4; Clean Serv. Co.,
Inc., B-281141.3, Feb. 16, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. __ at 3. The agency reasonably
concluded that United's proposal lacked the detail needed to demonstrate the
merits of its proposal. Since we find reasonable the agency's determination
that United's proposal was not among the most highly rated proposals, we
have no basis to disturb HUD's determination to exclude United's proposal
from the competitive range. See Ervin & Assocs., Inc., supra, at 3-6; SDS
Petroleum Prods., Inc., supra, at 5.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. United was not represented by counsel and thus could not obtain access to
proprietary or source selection sensitive information under a protective
order issued by our Office. However, the agency did provide such information
for in camera review by our Office.

2. We note that this information appears on page 98 of United's proposal,
which is the section of its proposal addressing its small business
subcontracting program. The RFP states that this section of the proposal
would be evaluated only for proposals which were otherwise technically
acceptable. RFP sect. M.VIII, at 207.