TITLE:  Eastco Building Services, Inc., B-283972.2, February 10, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-283972.2
DATE:  February 10, 2000
**********************************************************************
Eastco Building Services, Inc., B-283972.2, February 10, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Eastco Building Services, Inc.

File: B-283972.2

Date: February 10, 2000

Steven Brown for the protester.

Edward K. Wilson for Wilson 5 Service Company, Inc., an intervenor.

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

Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Allegation that evaluation of protester's proposal under past performance
factor was improper is without merit where agency conducted past performance
evaluation in accordance with solicitation evaluation scheme and, contrary
to protester's allegation, there is no evidence of involvement in the
evaluation or award decision by agency employee protester believes is biased
against it.

2. Where contemporaneous source selection documentation does not reference
tradeoff between awardee's technically superior proposal and protester's
lower-priced proposal, but debriefing letter from agency to protester shows
agency selected awardee's proposal as the best value based on its technical
superiority, despite its higher price, record supports conclusion that
agency conducted tradeoff.

DECISION

Eastco Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wilson 5
Service Company, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
GS-04P-99-LCC-0030, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for
janitorial services in four government buildings in Tampa, Florida. The
protester primarily argues that GSA improperly evaluated its proposal due to
bias, and that the price/technical tradeoff was improper.

We deny the protest.

The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for custodial and
related services for a 1-year base period, with four 1-year options. RFP at
6, amend. 1 at 1, amend. 4 at 7-9. Award was to be made to the responsible
offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to
the government, based on three factors: (1) price, (2) past performance, and
(3) management plan and approach; the technical factors, which were of equal
importance, were significantly more important than price. RFP at 114. Price
was to be evaluated based on the offeror's base and option year prices for
all four buildings. Id.

Twenty proposals were received. Eastco's proposal, priced at $2,637,100,
received ratings of 2 (above standard/very good) under all three factors,
and was the seventh-highest rated proposal; Wilson 5's proposal, priced at
$2,834,400, received ratings of 1 (exceptional/very good) under all factors,
and was the highest-rated proposal. [1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 9, Consensus
Ratings, at 1. Based on the results of the evaluation, the contracting
officer determined that Wilson 5's proposal was most advantageous to the
government and made award to the firm. AR, Tab 10, Summary of Evaluation, at
16. This protest followed.

PAST PERFORMANCE

Eastco challenges the evaluation of its proposal under the past performance
factor on the basis that its rating was unduly influenced by a GSA employee.
While the alleged facts are not entirely clear from its submissions, Eastco
seems to assert that a GSA contracting officer's representative (COR)
involved in administering Eastco's incumbent contract is biased against
Eastco, as evidenced by his derogatory comments about Eastco in connection
with a prior solicitation. Eastco maintains that the COR had an undue
influence on its past performance rating here because, in contacting
Eastco's references, the agency contacted only GSA employees who, Eastco
apparently believes, would more likely be influenced by the COR's biased
views than non-GSA employees. Eastco believes that, had non-GSA references
been contacted, they would have provided more favorable responses and its
proposal would have received a past performance rating of exceptional/very
good, rather than above standard/very good. Protest at 4; Comments at 1, 2,
4-6.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals and source selection
decision, our review is confined to a determination of whether the agency
acted reasonably and in a way consistent with the stated evaluation factors.
NAHB Research Center, Inc., B-278876.2, May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 150 at 3.

On its face, the evaluation of Eastco's proposal under the past performance
factor was reasonable and consistent with the RFP. The RFP stated that the
"government will check at least three references" and can consider "sources
of information other than those listed." RFP sect. B, at 111. Since the RFP
provided neither that GSA would contact certain references, nor that it
would not contact others, GSA was free to contact its own personnel. The
record shows that GSA contacted three GSA employees regarding Eastco's
performance on prior janitorial contracts. These individuals provided both
favorable and unfavorable responses--one concluded that she would recommend
Eastco to the government, one cited supervision and staffing problems in
stating that he would not recommend Eastco, and the third, citing the
issuance of a cure notice, stated that "yes & no. I need more of a track
record to decide." AR, Tab 4, Eastco's Reference Checks, at 1-9. These
references resulted in Eastco's consensus rating of standard/very good. AR,
Tab 9, Consensus Ratings, at 1. (In contrast, Wilson 5's references--two GSA
references, one non-GSA--all unqualifiedly indicated that they would
recommend the firm. AR, Tab 5, Wilson 5's Reference Checks, at 1-9.) Since
it is undisputed that these references were directly involved in the
administration of Eastco's prior janitorial contracts--one of which was for
services at a building covered by the current RFP--the agency reasonably
determined that they were in a position to provide meaningful information
regarding Eastco's performance, and reasonably relied on their input in
rating Eastco's past performance.

In order to show bias, the record must clearly establish that agency
personnel intended to injure the protester. Miller Bldg. Corp., B-245488,
Jan. 3, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 21 at 5. We will not attribute unfair or
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference or
supposition. ASI Personnel Serv., Inc., B-258537.7,
June 14, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 44 at 7.

There is no showing of bias here. The COR not only was not involved in the
evaluation or award decision, but the record contains no evidence (aside
from the protester's general assertions) that the COR ever made untrue
negative statements regarding Eastco, or that he had any influence--negative
or otherwise--on the evaluation of Eastco's proposal. Eastco asserts that
"since the filing of the Protest, the GSA/COR has unleashed a barrage of
unwarranted and unfounded harassments and allegations, to disrupt, and
create havoc with the operation," and "is on a personal vendetta campaign"
to undermine Eastco's performance of its current contract with the agency.
Comments at 5. Again, however, Eastco has provided no specifics or
supporting evidence regarding the COR's alleged behavior. There thus is no
basis on this record for finding that the COR is biased against Eastco, or
that bias played any part in the evaluation or award decision.

PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

Eastco does not challenge the evaluation of Wilson 5's proposal as
technically superior, but claims that the agency improperly failed to weigh
Wilson 5's technical advantages against Eastco's lower price and the fact
that Eastco's proposal did not contain any deficiencies. Protest at 3;
Comments at 4-5.

In a best value procurement such as the one here, a procuring agency has the
discretion to select a higher-rated, higher-priced technical proposal if
doing so is reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme set forth
in the RFP. Israel Aircraft Indus., Ltd., MATA Helicopters Div., B-274389 et
al., Dec 6, 1996, 97-1 CPD para. 41 at 10. Although Federal Acquisition
Regulation 15-308 requires that the source selection decision include the
rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied on by the
source selection authority, including benefits associated with additional
costs, the decision here documents only a comparison between Wilson 5's
proposal and the next-highest-rated proposal. AR, Tab 10, Summary of
Evaluations, at 1-6, 9, 16.

The source selection decision does not compare Wilson 5's proposal and
Eastco's lowest price proposal, since Eastco's proposal was rated only
seventh in line for award. However, the record as a whole shows that the
agency did compare Wilson 5's technical advantages to Eastco's lower price.
Specifically, in a November 3, 1999 letter to Eastco setting forth
debriefing information, GSA advised Eastco, in part, that

Page 114 of the solicitation states: Management Plan and Approach and past
performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price.
Wilson 5 easily had the most highly rated technical proposal and was a close
second to [Eastco's] lowest price offer. Therefore, Wilson 5's offer was
accepted as the best value to the government.

Protest, Encl. 1, Letter from GSA to Eastco 3 (Nov. 3, 1999). The
conclusions stated in this letter are repeated in the agency's report, in
which the contracting officer states that

In the cost technical tradeoff, Wilson 5's offer prevailed because technical
considerations were significantly more important than price and because the
extra technical benefits of Wilson 5's offer were worth the extra price.
Wilson 5's management plan and approach demonstrated clearly that Wilson 5
understood the contract work and would thus perform the contract work at a
very high level without problems.

Contracting Officer's Statement of Position at 3. While neither of these
documents sets forth a detailed analysis of the relative merits of the
proposals, both clearly show that competing technical and price advantages
were considered, as was the fact that the technical factors were
significantly more important than price under the evaluation scheme, and
that the agency considered Wilson 5's technical advantages

more important than the potential cost savings. This constitutes an adequate
tradeoff and, since the agency's conclusion was consistent with the
importance assigned the technical factors in the RFP, we find that it was
reasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. The proposals were assigned ratings under each of the three factors as
follows: 1 (exceptional/very good), 2 (above standard/very good), 3
(standard/fair), 4 (below standard/poor), and 5 (extremely poor). AR, Tab
10, Summary of Evaluation, at 9.