TITLE:  Crown Support Services, Inc., B-284471, April 21, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284471
DATE:  April 21, 2000
**********************************************************************
Crown Support Services, Inc., B-284471, April 21, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Crown Support Services, Inc.

File: B-284471

Date: April 21, 2000

Jesse W. Rigby, Esq., Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond, Stackhouse &
Stone, for the protester.

Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human
Services, for the agency.

Peter A. Iannicelli, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest challenging evaluation of protester's proposal for support services
contract is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with
solicitation's evaluation scheme.

DECISION

Crown Support Services, Inc. (Crown) protests the award of a contract to
Raven Services Corporation (Raven) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
273-99-P-0007, issued by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS), Department of Health and Human Services, for support
services. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably downgraded its
proposal.

We deny the protest.

Issued on April 16, 1999, the RFP solicited proposals for providing support
services for the NIEHS at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The
required services include: (1) mail; (2) messenger; (3) transportation of
passengers; (4) copy, binding, and facsimile; (5) moving laboratory/office
furniture and equipment; (6) conference room; and (7) maintainance of
government vehicles. RFP at C4-14. The RFP contemplated award of a 1-year,
fixed-price contract and included options for 4 additional years. RFP at B3,
L80.

The RFP stated that the award would be made on the basis of best overall
value after evaluation of proposals on technical factors (which encompassed
experience and past performance) and cost/price, and indicated that all
technical factors combined were significantly more important than
cost/price. Within the technical/past performance evaluation factor, the
evaluation criteria (and their respective weights) were: plan of operation
(40 points), quality assurance and safety plans (20 points), experience of
contractor's corporate organization related to technical proficiency/past
performance (20 points), and experience of key personnel (20 points). The
RFP stated that a cost analysis would be performed and considered as part of
the best value analysis. RFP at M91-93.

Twelve offers were received by the June 1 closing date. After evaluation,
three offers were determined to be in the competitive range; written
negotiations were conducted with each competitive range offeror. Final
revised offers were received from the competitive-range offerors and
evaluated. Final revised offers were ranked as follows:

 Offeror     Technical Score   Total Price

 Raven       [deleted]         $2,271,218.00

 Crown       [deleted]         $[deleted]

 Offeror A   [deleted]         $[deleted]

Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 4, Source Selection Determination, at 3.

The technical evaluation panel (TEP) recommended award to Raven because of
the superior technical merit of its proposal. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 7,
Final TEP Report, at 8-9. After reviewing the TEP's report and conducting a
best buy analysis, the contracting officer determined that Raven's higher
technical score more than offset its higher price and that Raven's offer
represented the best value. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 4, Source Selection
Determination, at 1, 5-6. Accordingly, the contract was awarded to Raven on
December 17. After a debriefing, Crown filed this protest alleging that the
agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal.

In reviewing an agency's evaluation of proposals, our Office will question
the agency's evaluation only where it violates a procurement statute or
regulation, lacks a reasonable basis, or is inconsistent with the stated
evaluation criteria. B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827, B-283828, Dec. 27,
1999, 2000 CPD para. 4 at 6. We conclude from the record that the protest is
without merit.

Crown challenges the fact that the contracting officer considered Crown's
intent to pay its employees at the minimum permissible rates in her source
selection decision. Protest at 4-5. The agency expressed concern during
discussions that Crown's low initial pay rates and lack of pay raises for
the option years would adversely affect employee morale and Crown's ability
to attract and retain employees. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 9, Discussions
Letter from Agency to Crown at 2-3 (Sept. 9, 1999). Crown's revised proposal
did not propose any wage revisions or offer any plan to allay the agency's
concerns. Crown appears to contend that, if the agency believed that the
minimum permissible pay rates were too low to attract and retain employees,
it was required to so state in the RFP. Protester's Comments at 4. We
disagree, because there is no such legal requirement. In any event, Crown
was explicitly put on notice of the agency's concern during discussions. We
note that Raven's revised proposal included more staff than Crown's revised
proposal and included pay raises for all employees in the option years. We
believe that the contracting officer reasonably considered the differences
in staffing levels and pay scale approach, as well as their potential effect
on employee morale, in her best value analysis. Agency Report, exh. IV,
Tab 4, Source Selection Determination,

at 1-3.

The protester also contends that NIEHS unreasonably downgraded its proposal
for lack of corporate experience in conference scheduling and mail/messenger
services. Protest at 8-9. Crown lost [deleted] out of a possible 20 points
under the corporate experience criterion. Crown states that it is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Management Services, Inc., which has had
experience in all of the tasks required under the RFP, and contends that it
should have been given credit for the corporate experience of its parent
company. Protester's Comments at 6.

The RFP stated that the agency would evaluate the organization's technical
experience in providing and managing similar types of services. Offerors
were instructed to submit a list and brief descriptions of contracts,
similar in nature to the present requirement, performed or completed within
the past 3 years. The list of prior contracts was to include, among other
things, the contract number, total contract value, description of the
requirement, and name and telephone numbers of the contracting officer and
the project manager. RFP at L84-85, M92.

In its initial proposal, Crown listed four contracts as prior experience.
Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 2, Crown's Initial Technical Proposal,
at 105-08. The TEP downgraded Crown's proposal because (1) [deleted];
(2) [deleted]; and (3) [deleted]. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 8, Initial TEP
Report, at 4.

During discussions, the agency asked Crown to elaborate on its specific
experience with conference room, binding, and mail/messenger services.
Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 9, Discussions Letter from Agency to Crown at 2
(Sept. 9,1999). In response, Crown's revised final offer included a very
brief narrative statement about work it did in these areas under several
military contracts. Crown's response did not list any references for these
contracts. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 1, Crown's Revised Final Offer
(Responses to Technical Concerns), at 4. While the TEP noted that Crown's
revised final offer claimed experience with [deleted], the TEP still
downgraded the proposal because [deleted]. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 7,
Final TEP Report, at 8.

Under the RFP, it was Crown's responsibility to provide descriptions of and
references for recent contracts (i.e., within the past 3 years) that were
similar to the present requirement. The prior contracts that Crown selected
were almost all for laundering services. The TEP did not believe that this
prior work adequately demonstrated the organization's technical experience
in providing and managing all of the types of services required by the RFP.
When, after having been asked for additional past performance information,
Crown provided only a brief description of work previously performed by
Crown's parent company, neglected to discuss any messenger services
experience, and failed to provide any additional references, it was, in our
view, reasonable for the TEP to still consider corporate experience to be a
weakness of Crown's proposal. [1] Accordingly, we cannot find unreasonable
the agency's downgrading of Crown's proposal on corporate experience.

The protester contends that NIEHS unreasonably downgraded its proposal for
failing to elaborate on a specific safety plan for NIEHS. Crown contends
that its ability to tailor its safety plan to the NIEHS facility was limited
because it was not an on-site contractor, and states that it tailored its
proposed safety plan to the NIEHS site as much as it could. Crown also
argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to downgrade its proposal on
this criterion because offerors were not required to submit a final safety
plan until 30 days after contract award. Protest at 7-8.

As noted above, quality assurance and safety plans constituted one of the
criteria on which proposals were to be evaluated. Although it is true that
the RFP required that the winning contractor submit a written plan for
complying with the RFP's safety and health provisions within 30 days after
contract award, the RFP stated that the agency would review and evaluate
each offeror's proposed plan for monitoring techniques and practices to
ensure high quality work and the safety of staff in performance of their
duties. RFP at H36, M91-92.

The TEP awarded Crown's initial proposal [deleted] of the 20 available
points on the evaluation of the quality assurance and safety plan criterion.
However, the evaluators criticized Crown's safety plan because: (1) it was
too detailed in some areas that were not pertinent to this contract (i.e.,
transporting chemicals, posting hazard warnings, welding, etc.); and (2) the
plan for transporting personnel looked like generic guidelines for military
transportation. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 8, Initial TEP Report, at 4,
15-17; and attach. B2, Evaluator Scoresheets (Crown) at 2, 5, 8.

During discussions, the agency pointed out that Crown's proposed guidelines
for passenger safety looked like generic guidelines associated with military
transportation and were not pertinent to this contract and asked Crown to
elaborate. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 9, Discussions Letter from Agency to
Crown at 2 (Sept. 9, 1999). In its revised final offer, Crown did not
elaborate on its proposed plan. Rather, Crown responded by stating that:
(1) this was only a preliminary safety plan; (2) it intended to tailor the
plan to meet specific contract requirements within 30 days after award as
allowed by the RFP; and (3) the guidelines for passenger safety were
"comprehensive" guidelines that it used on multiple contracts. Agency
Report, exh. IV, Tab 1, Crown's Revised Final Offer (Responses to Technical
Concerns), at 6.

During discussions, Crown clearly was advised that the agency had concerns
that the firm's passenger safety plan was not designed for NIEHS and the
tasks that would be required under this contract. Nevertheless, in its final
revised offer, Crown simply insisted on its right to wait until 30 days
after award to provide a more pertinent plan. In this regard, the
contracting officer points out that Crown's proposal provided guidelines in
electrical safety for wiring, battery acid accident emergency procedures,
and forklift safety operations, none of which are relevant to the work that
will be performed under this contract. Contracting Officer's Statement at 4.
Because Crown's revised final offer did not elaborate upon or offer any
improvements to its proposed safety plan, the TEP reasonably still
considered Crown's safety plan to have a weakness and did not raise its
score on this criterion. [2] Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 7, Final TEP
Report, at 7.

Finally, in view of the alleged unreasonable technical evaluation of Crown's
proposal, Crown contends that NIEHS did not provide an adequate rationale
for accepting Raven's higher priced proposal. Protest at 6. However, as
discussed above, the record does not support a finding that the technical
evaluation of Crown's proposal was unreasonable or otherwise improper.
Therefore, in the absence of any

challenge to the evaluation of Raven's proposal, this contention provides no
basis for

overturning the agency's selection of Raven's proposal for award. SRS
Techs., B-270341.2, Mar. 1, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 120 at 4.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Crown's proposal did not show that there would be any meaningful
involvement in the performance of this contract by its parent company;
therefore, the agency was justified in not giving Crown credit for the
experience of its parent company. See Universal Bldg. Maintenance, Inc.,
B-282456, July 15, 1999, 99-2 CPD para. 32 at 6.

2. Crown also contends that NIEHS incorrectly downgraded its proposal for
having four copy room operators in one copy center simultaneously. Despite
the deduction, Crown was highly rated on the relevant criterion (receiving
[deleted] of 40 possible points), and the [deleted] deduction was
attributable to two other perceived weaknesses, not challenged here, as well
as the copy room operator issue. Agency Report, exh. IV, Tab 7, Final TEP
Report, at 7; and Enclosure 1, at 1. Thus, any impact from the copy room
staffing issue was de minimis, and we need not address the issue here.