TITLE:  OneSource Energy Services, Inc., B-283445, November 19, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-283445
DATE:  November 19, 1999
**********************************************************************
OneSource Energy Services, Inc., B-283445, November 19, 1999

Decision

Matter of: OneSource Energy Services, Inc.

File: B-283445

Date: November 19, 1999

Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, for the protester.

J. Randolph MacPherson, Esq., Sullivan & Worcester, for Park Tower
Management Ltd., the intervenor.

Scarlett D. Grose, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Evaluation of protester's past performance is unreasonable where it is
based upon inaccurate information and improperly considered the protester's
legitimate exercise of rights under its contract to be evidence of negative
past performance.

2. Agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's staffing as unacceptable
based upon mechanical reliance on an undisclosed government minimum staffing
estimate where the protester proposed [DELETED] fewer than the agency's
estimate and supplemented this staffing level with [DELETED] positions, and
where there is no evidence that the agency considered the protester's
technical approach.

DECISION

OneSource Energy Services, Inc. [1] protests the award of a contract to Park
Tower Management Ltd. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
GS-02P-97-CTC-0207, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), for
mechanical operations and maintenance services at two buildings in New York,
New York. OneSource contends that GSA improperly evaluated its past
performance and proposed staffing, and that the agency failed to conduct
meaningful discussions with the firm.

We sustain the protest.

As amended, the RFP, issued August 22, 1997, was to obtain mechanical
operation and maintenance services at the United States Court House and the
Silvio Mollo Federal Building in New York, New York. RFP amend. 4, sect. B, at
6-7. The contract contemplated a 36-month base period with two 36-month
option periods.

The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis to the most advantageous
proposal, considering the technical evaluation factors and price. See RFP sect.
M, at para. 4. The technical evaluation factors listed in the RFP in descending
order of importance were "Experience and Past Performance Providing Similar
Mechanical Operation and Maintenance Services," worth 60 percent, and
"Operation and Maintenance Approach," worth 40 percent. Price, which was to
be evaluated for reasonableness, was said to be less important than the two
technical factors. Id. at para. 2; Agency Report, exh. 2, Source Selection Plan,
at 5.

Regarding the past performance factor, the RFP explained that "[e]xperience
is considered to be similar if the offeror provided mechanical operation and
maintenance services for a courthouse, office building or hospital of at
least 15 stories with at least 400,000 gross square feet." RFP Part C, at
para. 1. To evaluate past performance, GSA utilized a reference check form that
required a building manager familiar with the offeror's performance at a
referenced building to answer several specific questions regarding the
offeror's past performance. For example the questions included "Was the firm
able to handle irate and demanding tenants in a diplomatic fashion?" "Would
you hire the firm again to provide the same services?" and "How would you
rate the firms overall performance?" Agency Report, exhs. 5, 6.

With regard to the operations and maintenance approach factor, offerors were
required to provide a detailed approach, including the approach for the
operation of the building equipment and the handling and response to tenant
service calls and complaints; a preventive maintenance schedule and
methodologies to be used in meeting maintenance requirements; a description
of the type and number of staff and supervision to carry out the offeror's
maintenance plan, daily and periodic work, building operation, tenant
service calls and complaints, and emergency responses; and a quality control
program. RFP Part C, at para. 2.

On October 22, 1997, nine proposals were received in response to the RFP.
On July 22, 1998, amendment No. 4 to the RFP added the Mollo building to the
scope of work. Offerors submitted revised proposals by August 14. The source
selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals and placed eight,
including Park Tower's and OneSource's, in the competitive range. The SSEB
rated Park Tower's proposal with the highest technical point score of 840
points, while OneSource's proposal was third highest ranked with a point
score of 587 points. See Agency Report, exh. 9, Initial SSEB Report, at 4.

OneSource's past performance was downgraded because of certain negative
comments from the building managers contacted at two of the four buildings
considered in the evaluation of OneSource's past performance. [2] See id. at
14-15. OneSource's operations and maintenance approach was downgraded for a
variety of reasons, most particularly OneSource's proposal of [DELETED]
non-supervisory engineers/mechanics, which the SSEB deemed "insufficient to
operate and maintain both buildings in a satisfactory manner" because "[i]n
order to satisfactorily meet the demands of the building, a minimum staffing
of eleven (11) non-supervisory engineers/mechanics are considered to be
necessary." Id., exh. 12, SSEB Evaluation of Response to Amendment No. 4, at
2.

Discussions were held with the competitive range offerors in September 1998.
During the discussions with OneSource, GSA noted OneSource's proposed
staffing level and advised OneSource that "[t]his appears to be insufficient
to operate and maintain both buildings in a satisfactory manner." Id.,
exh.13, Discussion Letter from Contracting Officer to OneSource 4 (Sept. 17,
1998). GSA also identified certain of the negative comments regarding
OneSource's past performance at two of its buildings. Specifically, GSA
advised OneSource that at the JFK building it had "some problems handling
irate and demanding tenants in a diplomatic fashion," "[t]here were
conflicts that existed between GSA and [OneSource] . . . regarding whether
certain architectural repairs were above or below the reimbursable threshold
of $2,000," and "GSA felt [OneSource] often stretched or inflated its
estimate of architectural repairs to exceed the $2,000 threshold, at which
point the Government becomes responsible." [3] Id. at 2. GSA also advised
that at the 312 building OneSource "had some difficulties at the beginning
of its contract with the timely performance of preventive maintenance." [4]
Id.

Best and final offers (BAFO) were received from the competitive range
offerors on October 22, 1998. In response to the past performance
discussions, OneSource expressed "great surprise that GSA made the noted
comments" regarding OneSource's past performance at the JFK building, and
stated that the work outside the $2,000 threshold "was clearly outside the
scope of [OneSource's] base contract," and that while there may have been a
number of discussions about the $2,000 threshold, GSA was not obligated to
accept One-Source's pricing, and "[i]n each and every case, the discussion
was concluded and the proposal approved within terms acceptable to GSA."
Id., exh. 15, OneSource BAFO, at 5. OneSource requested GSA to contact the
building manager under OneSource's contract to confirm its positive past
performance at the JFK building. Regarding the 312 building, OneSource
acknowledged having some problems at the onset of this contract, but
explained that it had made "great strides" to resolve the issues. Id. In
response to the staffing discussions, OneSource proposed to supplement its
staff of [DELETED] full-time engineers/mechanics by adding [DELETED] at the
United States Courthouse building and an [DELETED] at the Mollo building
during the cooling season.
Id. at 4, 10.

In light of OneSource's responses, the Chairman of the SSEB contacted the
building management technical specialist of the JFK building, who had
provided the previous reference, a second time on October 29, 1998. The
memorandum documenting this contact reflects that this individual reported
as follows:

[H]e had problems with [OneSource] regarding inflated estimates, yet he
rated their overall performance as ‘good' . . . . [OneSource's]
building mechanics/engineers performed good, they did their job as expected.
However, the company was out to take advantage of GSA. [OneSource] made GSA
responsible for the cost of repairs by inflating and stretching estimated
cost of repairs, thereby exceeding the $2,000 threshold. They would claim
that equipment were deficient and made GSA replace them. They charged GSA
for everything. [OneSource] management was difficult to work with. GSA . . .
was elated when [OneSource's] contract expired. . . . [OneSource] has a bad
reputation in the [DELETED] area. They had several private sector and

government contracts in the past, but no one would use them and they are no
longer in the [DELETED] area.

Id., exh. 17, Contact Record (Oct. 29, 1998).

GSA contacted the building manager on the OneSource contract for the JFK
building on February 8, 1999. [5] The reference check form for this contact
indicates that this individual provided a more favorable evaluation of
OneSource's performance at the JFK building than did the building management
technical specialist. [6] The building manager for the first part of
OneSource's contract for the JFK building also specifically responded to the
building management technical specialist's specific negative comments
regarding OneSource's performance at the JFK building by indicating that,
while there was "some ‘head butting'" and that OneSource did have "a
little more combative negotiation style," he regarded OneSource's actions to
be what would generally be expected of a contractor. This building manager
attributed his differences in perception from the building management
technical specialist's perception of the same events to be a matter of age
and personality. See id., exh. 22, JFK Building Reference Check Form and
Attachment.

On November 9, 1998, the Chairman of the SSEB contacted the building manager
of the 312 building again. The memorandum documenting the contact reflects
that the building manager advised that OneSource in the first one and a half
year of the contract went through four project managers, that the first
three were found to be unqualified, but that the fourth was qualified and
services improved. The building manager also advised that similar
circumstances occurred regarding the hiring of heating ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) mechanics. [7] Id., exh. 19, Contact Record (Nov. 9,
1998). OneSource was afforded the opportunity to respond to these concerns,
id., exh. 20, Letter from GSA to OneSource (November 19, 1998), and
OneSource responded that it did not disagree with GSA that this contract
"has been less than a model account for our corporation," but explained that
"its contract performance has not been all negative" and elaborated on some
of the particular mitigating factors regarding its performance of the 312
building contract. Id., exh. 21, Letter from OneSource to GSA 1 (Nov. 28,
1998).

Park Tower's BAFO at an evaluated price of $20,227,801.50 again received the
highest technical score of 820 points. OneSource's BAFO at an evaluated
price of [DELETED] was scored at 500 points, again making it the third
highest-ranked proposal. [8] See id., exh. 27, SSEB Final Source Selection
Evaluation Report, July 8, 1999, at 4. The SSEB considered and documented
Park Tower's past performance to be "very good" and its operations and
maintenance approach to be "good."
Id. at 32-35.

The SSEB reported that, while OneSource's past performance was considered
"very good" on one evaluated building, its performance on two other
buildings was considered to be "poor," such that its past performance
warranted a marginal rating. [9] Id. at 10-13, 36. The SSEB then detailed
most of its reported conversations and reference checks regarding the
negative aspects of OneSource's past performance, and gave greater weight to
the building management technical specialist's views over the more positive
comments of the building manager on the OneSource contract for the JFK
building because of the building management technical specialist's greater
familiarity with OneSource's past performance. The SSEB also noted that
OneSource "did not specifically address [during discussions] the charges of
inflated estimates." [10] Id. at 10. The SSEB found OneSource's past
performance history "to be troubling," such that "[t]here is a lack of
confidence" that OneSource "can perform well under this RFP." Id. at 36.

The SSEB also reported that it used the "Craft Package" analytical tool and
historical data to determine that a minimum of 11 non-supervisory
engineers/mechanics were required to perform this contract and that "[a]n
offeror proposing a contract staff less than the aforementioned, is
considered to be inadequate for the proper operation and maintenance of both
buildings." Id. at 6-7. The SSEB considered OneSource's operations and
maintenance approach marginal because its staffing level was "insufficient,"
inasmuch as OneSource proposed only [DELETED] full-time engineers/mechanics
with [DELETED], which is fewer than the required 11 full-time
non-supervisory engineers/mechanics. Id. at 14-15, 37. The SSEB also stated
that it "believes the use of [DELETED] is not conducive to providing the
highest possible level of quality services" because they "do not have a
sense of attachment and ownership to the facility" and because "they have to
spend time adjusting and learning about the building and the equipment." Id.
at 14.

The SSEB thus found OneSource's proposal to be marginal under the two
technical evaluation factors. The SSEB report then performed a
cost/technical tradeoff between Park Tower's highest-rated proposal and
OneSource's lower priced proposal, and determined that given Park Tower's
strengths and OneSource's marginal ratings under the two technical
evaluation criteria, the significant "technical difference warrants the
expenditure of additional funds due to the additional benefits the
Government will receive from Park Tower." Id. at 36.

On July 13, the source selection official concurred with the SSEB report. In
so doing, he read only the SSEB reports and source selection plan, and did
not read the proposals or the reference checks. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at
191, 199-207, 222.
On July 30, award was made to Park Tower. This protest followed.

OneSource contends that GSA's evaluation of its proposal under the past
performance and operations and management approach technical factors was
unreasonable. In reviewing protests against allegedly improper evaluations,
it is not our role to reevaluate proposals. Rather, our Office examines the
record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and in
accord with the RFP's stated evaluation criteria. Mechanical Contractors,
S.A., B-277916, Oct. 27, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 121 at 3. Based upon our detailed
review of the record, including the transcript of the hearing, we conclude
that GSA unreasonably evaluated OneSource's proposal under both technical
evaluation factors.

As previously noted, GSA downgraded OneSource's proposal for its past
performance at the JFK building based upon the evaluation by the building
management technical specialist that indicated that OneSource lacked the
ability to handle irate and demanding tenants and that OneSource allegedly
inflated estimates to exceed the $2,000 threshold for repairs under its
contract. However, the testimony provided by the building management
technical specialist at a hearing conducted by our Office did not support
the SSEB's evaluation in this regard.

For example, the building management technical specialist testified that he
did not recall advising the SSEB that OneSource systematically inflated
estimates and he believes the SSEB misinterpreted his remarks about the
nature of the disputes with OneSource regarding the $2,000 threshold. [11]
Tr. at 251-52, 266-68. The building management technical specialist further
testified that he informed the SSEB that, while OneSource and the government
disagreed frequently on the cost of repairs and he considered OneSource to
be "combative," most of the time there were acceptable resolutions. See Tr.
at 252-54, 268-70. Also, the building management technical specialist
testified that there were other statements in the evaluation record
attributed to him that were inaccurate, such as that he said that he was
elated when the OneSource contract expired and that he said that OneSource
had a bad reputation in the [DELETED] area. See Tr. at 265-66, 306-08.
Further, the building management technical specialist testified that the
reference check form mischaracterized his answer to the question as to
whether he would contract with OneSource again; that this statement
pertained to the contracting instrument, which at the JFK building was
flawed because of poorly drafted specifications that led to the disputes
between OneSource and GSA; and that under appropriate terms he would
contract with the company again for similar services because their actual
contract performance was good. [12] Tr. 298-308. We find the testimony of
the building management technical specialist is credible.

Finally, while the SSEB report concludes that OneSource's past performance
at the JFK building was "poor," the fact is (as noted by the SSEB report)
that the building management technical specialist and the building manager
on the OneSource contract for the JFK building concluded that OneSource's
overall contract performance at the JFK building was "good" or "very good."
Id., exhs. 5, 22, 27 (at 11); see Tr. at 272.

The record also evidences that the SSEB report statement that the building
management technical specialist reported that OneSource "has had some
problems handling irate and demanding tenants in a diplomatic fashion at the
[JFK] building," Agency Report, exh. 27, Final Source Selection Evaluation
Report, at 10-11, may have exaggerated the building management technical
specialist's actual concerns. In this regard, the reference check form
reports with regard to OneSource's ability to handle irate and demanding
tenants in a diplomatic fashion that the building management technical
specialist stated "yes to most tenants; difficult to some." Id., exh. 5. The
building management technical specialist testified that "a large portion of
the time . . . what [OneSource] had to do in dealing with tenants was
fine.''
Tr. at 296-97. The building management technical specialist further
explained that the OneSource contract was undertaken during an $80 million
project that made dealing with tenants more complicated, that certain
tenants were difficult to please in this context, and that there were some
union considerations in interacting with the OneSource's employees. Tr. at
280-82, 293-98. Here too, we find the testimony of the building management
technical specialist is credible.

Thus, it appears that the primary problem that GSA had with OneSource's past
performance at the JFK building was that firm's exercise of rights under the
$2,000 threshold provision of its contract. While it is appropriate, in
evaluating past performance, to consider a contractor's "combative"
attitude, we have recognized that absent some evidence of abuse of the
contract disputes process, contracting agencies should not lower an
offeror's past performance evaluation based solely on it having filed
claims; firms should not be prejudiced in competing for other contracts
because of their reasonable pursuit of such remedies in the past. See Nova
Group, Inc., B-282947, Sept. 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 56. Here, there is no
persuasive evidence of record that OneSource's interpretation and use of the
$2,000 threshold provision of the contract lacked merit or that they
adversely affected the performance of the contract, which was otherwise
considered good or very good. [13] The protester and the building management
technical specialist agree that there were contract disputes because of the
way the contract specifications were written. The building management
technical specialist also testified that the disputes involving the
responsibility for repair costs usually were resolved at terms acceptable to
the government. Tr. at 269-72. GSA has not presented any further evidence
that would show that OneSource's position with regard to the $2,000
threshold provision was frivolous or that OneSource abused or unfairly
manipulated the contract.

As indicated, while the source selection official relied upon the SSEB final
report to make his award decision, the record evidences that that report did
not fairly or accurately portray OneSource's past performance at the JFK
Building. Instead, the record suggests that OneSource's past performance at
that building was at least "good" and that the primary agency concern was
OneSource's legitimate exercise of its rights under the contract, which is
not an appropriate reason to downgrade OneSource's past performance. While
we believe the SSEB appropriately portrayed and rated OneSource's
performance on the 312 building, [14] the record demonstrates that the
evaluation of OneSource's JFK Building performance played a significant role
in the SSEB's conclusion that OneSource's past performance was marginal, and
that this rating, with its supporting discussion, was part of the
cost/technical tradeoff justifying the selection of Park Tower's
significantly higher priced proposal. [15]

We also conclude that the agency's evaluation of OneSource's proposal as
marginal under the operations and maintenance approach factor solely for not
proposing 11 full-time, non-supervisory engineers/mechanics was
unreasonable.

Here, the record shows that the agency had developed, but did not disclose
to offerors, a minimum staffing estimate of 11 full-time non-supervisory
engineers/mechanics necessary to perform this contract. While GSA advised
OneSource during discussions that [DELETED] non-supervisory
engineers/mechanics "appear[ed] to be insufficient," it did not state that
11 full-time non-supervisory engineers/mechanics was actually a minimum
staffing requirement, and in response to GSA's generally expressed staffing
concern, OneSource proposed to supplement its staff with [DELETED]. The
agency then used the 11 staff minimum to determine that OneSource's staffing
proposal of [DELETED] full-time non-supervisory engineers/mechanics plus
[DELETED] was unacceptable, and did not otherwise consider OneSource's
particular technical approach, except to state why the use of [DELETED] was
not considered desirable. See Agency Report, exh. 12, SSEB Evaluation of
Responses to Amendment No. 4, at 2 and exh. 27, SSEB Final Source Selection
Evaluation Report at 6-7, 14, 37;
Tr. at 157-59, 178-81.

While an agency may rely on its own estimates of the staffing levels
necessary for satisfactory performance when negotiating a fixed-price
contract (such as to determine an offeror's understanding of requirements),
absolute reliance on estimates can have the effect of arbitrarily and
unfairly penalizing an innovative or unusually efficient offeror. Therefore,
we have found that it is inappropriate to determine the acceptability of
proposals by the mechanical application of an undisclosed estimate. Such an
approach fails to assess whether a firm's proposed workforce is particularly
skilled and efficient, or whether because of a unique approach, a firm could
satisfactorily perform the work with different staffing than estimated by
the agency. KCA Corp., B-255115, Feb. 9, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 94 at 6-7.

Here, the record shows that the agency unequivocally determined, but did not
disclose, that a minimum of 11 full-time, non-supervisory
engineers/mechanics were required and that the staffing levels of offerors
who proposed less than this number would be considered unacceptable. Indeed,
OneSource's staffing was determined unacceptable and its operations and
maintenance approach was therefore downgraded to the marginal level for
failing to meet this minimum, even though OneSource's proposed staffing fell
just short of this minimum and the record evidences that there were no other
concerns with OneSource's approach. Since there is no indication that
OneSource's particular technical approach was evaluated in making this
determination, we do not find this evaluation reasonable. [16] In the
alternative, if the 11-person staffing estimate was a minimum agency
requirement irrespective of the technical approach of the offerors, it
should have been specifically disclosed to OneSource during discussions. See
Metro Mach. Corp., B-281872 et al., Apr. 22, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 101.

Thus, the record does not reasonably support OneSource's marginal past
performance rating, and shows that OneSource's marginal rating for its
operations and maintenance approach was unreasonably evaluated.

The protest is sustained.

We recommend that, consistent with this decision, the agency reevaluate
proposals, reopen discussions if necessary, and make a new best-value
determination. [17]
We also recommend that OneSource be reimbursed for the cost of filing and
pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 4 C.F.R. sect.
21.8(d)(1) (1999). The protester should submit its certified claim for such
costs, detailing the time expended and the costs incurred, directly to the
contracting agency within
60 days of receiving this decision.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. During this procurement, OneSource changed its name from ISS Energy
Services, Inc. Protest at 1 n.2.

2. OneSource's past performance history included the James M. Hanley
Courthouse, Syracuse, New York; the Peter Rodino Building, Newark, New
Jersey; the John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts (JFK
building); and the United States Courthouse, 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles California (312 building).
Id. at 14. GSA was the agency responsible for all of these buildings.
One-Source's past performance at the Rodino and Hanley buildings was
considered "very good"; the negative comments at issue here were related to
the JFK and 312 buildings.

3. Regarding the JFK building, the reference check form indicates that GSA
spoke with a building management technical specialist on February 9, 1998.
Agency Report, exh. 5, JFK Building Reference Check Form. He worked at the
JFK building for the entire 3-year term of the OneSource contract at that
building. Id., exh. 22, JFK Building Reference Check Form, at 3. In addition
to the above, the reference check form indicates that he answered "no" to
the question about whether he would hire the firm again to provide the same
services, but rated OneSource's overall performance as "good." Id., exh. 5,
JFK Building Reference Check Form.

4. For the 312 building, the form reflects that GSA contacted the building
manager, on February 2, 1998. Id., exh. 5, 312 North Spring Street Building
Reference Check Form. His initial reference check form, which contained the
above mentioned negative comment, rated OneSource's overall performance on
this building as "very good."

5. This individual was the principal building manager at the JFK building
during the first year and a half of the contract.

6. For example, the building manager on the OneSource contract for the JFK
building answered "yes" to the question regarding whether he would hire the
firm again to provide the same services and rated OneSource's overall
performance under the contract as "very good." Id., exh. 22, JFK Building
Reference Check Form.

7. The record also contains a revised reference check form completed on the
312 building, dated November 5, where the responses from the building
manager changed for several questions. For example, he changed his overall
rating of OneSource's performance from "very good" to "fair." Compare id.,
exh. 5 at 312 Building Reference Check Form with id., exh. 18, 312 North
Spring Street Building Revised Reference Check Form.

8. The second highest scored BAFO with a point score of 747 points was
higher priced than both OneSource's and Park Tower's BAFOs.

9. In evaluating OneSource's BAFO, the SSEB excluded the Hanley building
because
at 14 stories with 387,000 square feet of space it failed to meet the RFP's
minimum 15-story, 400,000 square-foot criteria for consideration. Although
OneSource argues that the SSEB should not have excluded this building from
consideration because it essentially met the criteria, the SSEB could
properly exclude the building from consideration on this basis.

10. The record contains no examples of the alleged inflated estimates.

11. Under the circumstances, the comment in the final SSEB report that
OneSource "did not specifically address the charges of inflated estimates"
cannot be considered to be a fair comment, given that OneSource denied any
basis for this charge during discussions. Agency Report, exh. 27, SSEB's
Final Source Selection Evaluation Report, at 10.

12. The building management technical specialist's testimony is consistent
with the statement on his reference check that there were "numerous"
contract disputes with OneSource because the "specs were at fault." Agency
Report, exh. 5. The statement regarding the specifications being at fault
was not reported in the final SSEB report.

13. The only other noted problem concerned OneSource's ability to
diplomatically handle irate and demanding tenants, which is of course an
appropriate area of past performance concern by the agency, so long as it is
reasonably evaluated.

14. While we do not take issue with the SSEB's evaluation and consideration
of the building manager's comments on OneSource's contract performance at
the 312 building, we note that the building manager gave inconsistent
evaluations regarding his experience with OneSource's performance, Agency
Report, exhs. 5, 18, 19, and now regards OneSource as doing a "great job."
See Tr. at 335. Since we otherwise sustain the protest and recommend that
OneSource's past performance rating be reconsidered, the agency should
ensure that OneSource's performance at the 312 building is accurately and
properly evaluated.

15. With its post-hearing comments, GSA has provided a brief declaration
from the source selection official, in which he states that his award
selection would have
been the same, even if he had been aware of the building management
technical specialist's further explanations, elicited during the hearing
before our Office, of OneSource's performance at the JFK building. Agency
Post-Hearing Comments attach. 1. We accord little weight to such
post-protest judgments, which are prepared in the heat of the adversarial
process, because they may not represent the fair and considered judgment of
the agency, which is a prerequisite of a rational evaluation and source
selection process. Intellectual Properties, Inc., B-280803, Nov. 19, 1998,
98-2 CPD para. 115 at 7-8; Boeing Sikorsky Aircraft Support, B-277263.2,
B-277263.3, Sept. 29, 1997, 97-2 CPD para. 91 at 15.

16. While we cannot find the agency's concerns about the use of [DELETED]
unreasonable, this does not constitute an evaluation of OneSource's
particular maintenance plan and how it would be staffed. There is no
evidence that the SSEB evaluated these aspects of OneSource's operations and
maintenance approach in assessing the acceptability of its proposed staffing
level.

17. In light of our recommendation, we need not address the protester's
arguments concerning the propriety of the agency's best-value decision.