TITLE:  Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-285351.3, May 31, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-285351.3
DATE:  May 31, 2001
**********************************************************************
Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-285351.3, May 31, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Olympus Building Services, Inc.

File: B-285351.3

Date: May 31, 2001

Ruth E. Ganister, Esq., Rosenthal & Ganister, for the protester.

Mark E. Warnick, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.

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

DIGEST

Protest challenging several aspects of evaluation of protester's proposal is
denied where agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposed personnel
training program; protest regarding remaining evaluation areas is academic,
since awardee would remain in line for award even if protester's proposal
were awarded the maximum points possible under each of those areas.

DECISION

Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the evaluation of its revised
proposal, and the award of a contract to Mitch Murch's Maintenance
Management Company (MMMM) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
GS06P-99-GXC-0021, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA) for
janitorial and related services at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, St.
Louis, Missouri. Olympus principally maintains that the agency did not
properly evaluate its proposal.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, initially issued on September 16, 1999, contemplated the
award
of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. Based
on the evaluation, Olympus's proposal was eliminated from the competitive
range. Olympus challenged the evaluation of its proposal in a protest to our
Office. In our decision Olympus Bldg. Servs., Inc., B-285351, B-285351.2,
Aug. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 178, we sustained the protest, finding that GSA
improperly had applied undisclosed standards in evaluating proposals. We
recommended that the agency amend the solicitation to provide a rational and
reasonably disclosed evaluation scheme, request and evaluate revised
proposals and make a new source selection decision.

In response to our decision, the agency issued an amendment that, among
other things, revised sections L and M of the solicitation. Revised section
M identified five evaluation factors--experience, past performance, staffing
and training, cost control and resources, and quality control--and advised
offerors that the combined weight of the technical factors was more
important than price, RFP amend. 6 (RFP),

sect.sect. M.2.a, M.2.b, and that GSA intended to make award without discussions.
RFP sect. M.2.c. Revised section L provided descriptions/explanations of each of
the evaluation factors, and listed standards of evaluation the agency would
apply in evaluating proposals under each factor. RFP sect. L.2.

Seven proposals were received by the October 27 closing date. Agency Report
(AR) at 2. Members of the source selection evaluation board (SSEB)
individually evaluated the proposals; the evaluators documented and
discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal and, in internal
discussions, reached a consensus regarding final evaluation ratings. AR, Tab
12, SSEB Scores and Notes, at 1-42. Based on the consensus, the evaluators
rated the proposals under each technical factor using adjectival ratings and
corresponding point values. Based on this evaluation, four proposals were
rated unacceptable, two, including Olympus's (575 of 1,000 possible points)
were rated poor, and MMMM's (948 points) was rated excellent. [1] AR, Tab
14, SSEB Report, at 1. Olympus's evaluated price was $6,063,527, and MMMM's
$5,655,288. Contracting Officer's Statement at 12.
The agency determined that there was a clear delineation between MMMM's
proposal and the next two highest-rated proposals, and that award therefore
should be made without establishing a competitive range. AR, Tab 14, SSEB
Report, at 26. The agency notified offerors of its intent to award a
contract to MMMM and, after receiving a written debriefing, Olympus filed
this protest with our Office.

Olympus challenges the evaluation of its revised proposal under several
factors under which its proposal was significantly downgraded: experience
(135 of 240 possible points), quality control (35 of 120), and resources and
cost control
(70 of 200), and also under the training subfactor (40 of 100). Protester's
Comments at 3-15. Olympus also argues that the evaluation deviated from the
stated evaluation scheme under the experience and cost control factors.
Protester's Supplemental Comments at 4-5.

In reviewing protests against the propriety of an evaluation of proposals,
we will review the record to ensure that the evaluation was fair and
reasonable and consistent with the criteria stated in the RFP. Research
Analysis and Maintenance, Inc., B-239223, Aug. 10, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 129 at
4; Institute of Modern Procedures, Inc., B-236964, Jan. 23, 1990, 90-1 CPD para.
93 at 3. We find that the protester's arguments do not provide a basis for
sustaining the protest. Competitive prejudice
is an essential element of a viable protest; where the protester fails to
demonstrate that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a
substantial chance of receiving the award, there is no basis for finding
prejudice, and our Office will not sustain the protest. Trauma Serv. Group,
B-254674.2, Mar. 14, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 199 at 6;
see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here,
because of the large discrepancy in technical scores, Olympus's score would
move above MMMM's only if we agreed that its proposal was misevaluated under
all four challenged criteria, and that it should have received all possible
points under those criteria; this would result in a score of 955 for
Olympus, compared to MMMM's 948. This being the case, once any one of
Olympus's arguments fails, MMMM's technical rating would remain superior,
and Olympus would not be in line for award. Myers Investigative and Sec.
Servs., Inc., B-286971.2, B-286971.3, Apr. 2, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 59.
Therefore, since we find that the evaluation under the training subfactor
was reasonable, we need consider Olympus's evaluation challenge only with
regard to that subfactor, which we discuss below.

Under the training subfactor, offerors were required to describe in detail
their training program for all personnel. RFP sect. L.2C(b). Section L
specifically stated
that, in order to meet the standard of evaluation under this subfactor, an
offeror's description of its training program "shall include" the method of
training to be used (for example, orientation, on-the-job, classroom, or
computed-aided), the individuals responsible for the training, the frequency
of the training, and the type of training (for example, safety, processes,
new products, technology and equipment, customer service/relations, and
floor care). Id.

GSA downgraded Olympus's proposal (40 out of 100 points) on the basis that
it did not include methods or frequency of training, and did not identify
the individuals responsible for training, contrary to the express terms of
the solicitation.

Olympus argues that GSA's conclusions "are not supported," Protester's
Comments at 8, and that the downgrading therefore was unwarranted. For
example, Olympus argues that its proposal "indicates that initial [DELETED]
programs are given to all employees and that [DELETED] training programs are
provided to all employees." Id. The protester suggests that, since its
training personnel would not be hired until after contract award, it could
not provide the specific names of these individuals, with the exception of
its president. It notes, however, that the proposal specified that the
[DELETED] would have primary responsibility for training supervisory
personnel and that [DELETED] and [DELETED] would assist with the orientation
training. Protester's Comments at 9.

The evaluation under this subfactor was reasonable. Our review of Olympus's
proposal shows that, as the agency concluded, Olympus provided no
information on its training methods; in its comments on the agency's report,
Olympus does not dispute this. Similarly, the proposal did not set forth a
training schedule or indicate how frequently training was to be provided.
While Olympus asserts that its training was to be "continuous," its proposal
did not specifically state that this was to be the case. The proposal used
the term "continuous" only once, in the purpose statement for custodial
training (stating that the purpose of its "[DELETED] Training Programs is to
provide each employee with in-depth understanding of their duties and
responsibilities"). AR, Tab 3, Olympus Proposal, at 35. The proposal did not
state that training for its managers was to be continuous, or otherwise
indicate the frequency of this training; the proposal stated only that all
newly hired supervisory staff or promoted or transferred personnel will be
provided "with an orientation of their job description" prior to performing
their duties. Id. at 31. As for safety and accident training, the proposal
indicated only that safety and accident prevention procedures would be
presented during employee orientation, before the contract start date. Id.
at 40.

Finally, the proposal did not identify all the trainers who would conduct
the training. While Olympus noted that it would need [DELETED] instructors
for its orientation program, including on-site and phase-in management
personnel, the president and the operations manager, Olympus did not
identify trainers for its management, custodial or safety and accident
training. Rather, the proposal indicated only that the project manager would
have responsibility under management training for "implementing" job
training and training supervisors in company reporting procedures. Id. at
31, 33. The proposal also indicated that the project manager would
"implement" the custodial training program, and that the operations manager
and other supervisors would assist the project manager. Id. at 36-37. There
was no indication in the proposal that "implementing" included actual
training, and the
job responsibilities listed for project manager, operations manager, and
other supervisors did not specify that these employees would conduct
training.
No trainers were identified for the safety and accident training. To the
extent Olympus complains that it could not identify training personnel
because they were not to be hired until after award, the protest is
untimely. The solicitation specifically required offerors to identify the
"[i]ndividuals responsible for conducting training." RFP sect. L.2C(b). If
Olympus objected to this requirement, it was required to protest on this
ground prior to the time set for receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2001). We conclude that there is no basis to object to the
evaluation of Olympus's proposal under the training subfactor.

Since Olympus cannot improve its technical score under the training
subfactor, its technical standing would remain below MMMM's even if its
other arguments were

successful. Since MMMM's evaluated price also was lower than Olympus's, that
firm was entitled to award. [2]

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. The source selection plan provided that proposals with total scores of
900 or
more would be rated excellent, 800 to 899 good, 500 to 799 poor, and at or
below
499 unacceptable. AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Plan, at 9.

2. Olympus initially protested that the agency had improperly evaluated its
price; however, Olympus withdrew this ground of protest after receiving the
agency's explanation of its price computations in the agency report.
Protester's Comments at 15. In supplemental comments filed on April 30,
Olympus asserted for the first time that the agency's alleged deviation from
the RFP's evaluation scheme could have "skewed" the awardee's and other
offerors' evaluations. Protester's Supplemental Comments at 9. Even if we
considered this general, speculative assertion to be a viable protest
ground, because it was raised more than 10 days after Olympus argued (in its
April 10 comments on the agency report) that the agency had deviated from
the evaluation scheme, it would be untimely. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2).