TITLE:  United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-286769.3; B-286769.4, June 5, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-286769.3; B-286769.4
DATE:  June 5, 2001
**********************************************************************
Decision

Matter of: United Janitorial Services; Olympus Building Services, Inc.

File: B-286769.3; B-286769.4

Date: June 5, 2001

Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, and Ruth E. Ganister, Esq.,
Rosenthal and Ganister, for the protesters.

Wilson J. Campbell, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the
agency.

Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal on basis that it
offered only one part-time quality control manager to perform all required
inspections--which agency found would be inadequate to cover large number of
buildings spread across large area--and did not include certain information
required by the solicitation.

2. Price/technical tradeoff was reasonable where agency determined that only
meaningful difference between awardee's and protester's proposals was in
experience and past performance, and that protester's superiority in this
area was not worth its higher price.

DECISION

United Janitorial Services and Olympus Building Services, Inc. protest the
award
of a contract to Nova Commercial Company under request for proposals (RFP)
No. N68711-00-R-7734, issued by the Department of the Navy for janitorial
services. United argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal.
Olympus protests the evaluation of its proposal, and price/technical
tradeoff.

We deny the protests.

The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base
year, with four 1-year options, covers custodial and janitorial services at
approximately 258 buildings spread over 11 locations covering an area 15
miles in diameter. RFP, amend. 3, Building List; Contracting Officer's
Statement-United (COS-United) at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a
best value basis with technical factors approximately equal to price, and
notified offerors that the agency intended to award the contract without
holding discussions. The technical evaluation factors and subfactors were
listed as follows:

Factor A: Past Performance

Subfactor A1 - Specific Custodial/Janitorial Past Performance

Factor B: Experience

Subfactor B1 - Specific Custodial/Janitorial Experience

Factor C: Management/Administration Plan

Subfactor C1 - Management Plan for Work Accomplishment

Subfactor C2 - Detailed Management Plan for Quality Control

Subfactor C3 - Management Plan for Contract Administration

Subfactor C4 - On Site Staff and Organizational Structure

RFP amend. 3, sect. M, at 2-3.

Fourteen offerors, including United, Olympus and Nova, submitted technical
proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB) under
each factor and subfactor as exceptional, very good, acceptable, marginal,
unacceptable or neutral. The TEB reported its conclusions to a source
selection board that analyzed the proposed prices, and performed an
integrated assessment of the proposals based on the price and technical
factors. Following this process, Nova's proposal was rated overall very
good, and Olympus's exceptional, and both were determined to be reasonably
priced, at $12,951,564.74 and $[DELETED] respectively. United's proposal was
rated overall marginal, and unacceptable for award as submitted. Business
Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 9; COS-United at 5. The evaluation results
were forwarded to the source selection authority (SSA), who determined that
Nova's proposal represented the best value, and therefore made award to Nova
on the basis of its initial proposal.

UNITED PROTEST

United's proposal was downgraded based on marginal ratings under subfactors
C2 and C4. United challenges these ratings. [1] In reviewing a protest
against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring
that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the
solicitation. National Toxicology Labs, Inc., B-281074.2, Jan. 11, 1999,
99-1 CPD para. 5 at 3. We have reviewed the record and, as discussed below, find
that the evaluation of United's proposal was reasonable.

Subfactor C2--Detailed Management Plan for Quality Control

Under subfactor C2, the solicitation stated:

(i) Provide the offeror's detailed plan for Quality Control procedures and
management in accordance with Section C, "Contractor Quality Control," and
describe its intended plan to work with the Government Quality Assurance
(QA) program.

RFP amend. 3, sect. M, at 4. The agency found that, while United's proposal
provided an adequate quality control plan, it included only one quality
control manager, who was also the safety manager and the alternate project
manager. The agency did not believe that one part-time quality control
manager would be able to provide adequate support for United's proposed
plan. More specifically, the agency explains that where, as here, an offeror
proposes to perform random sampling quality control inspections for daily
recurring services (e.g., restroom cleaning and servicing), it must perform
those inspections in accordance with the Automated Quality Assurance System
(AQAS). [2] The AQAS requires inspections of between 14.6 percent
(approximately 17.5 inspections per day) and 30.2 percent (approximately
37.6 inspections per day) of all daily recurring services. Agency
Supplemental Information, May 2, 2001, at 1. The agency concluded that one
part-time quality control manager would be unable to perform the required
number of inspections, especially given the size of the area over which the
inspections must be performed (248 buildings in 11 locations spread over an
area 15 miles in diameter).

United does not disagree that one part-time quality control manager cannot
perform the required inspections. Rather, United asserts that it did not
propose a single quality control manager to perform the inspections; it
notes that, in addition to the quality control manager, its proposal stated
that two site supervisors would support the quality control manager, and
that managers and supervisors also would perform semi-formal inspections.
United also maintains that the agency ignored its plan to perform the
inspections on a rotating basis, which, according to United, would reduce
the number of inspections that would have to be performed on a single day.

The evaluation under this subfactor was reasonable. First, notwithstanding
United's proposal to have site supervisors and managers assist the quality
control manager, we find nothing unreasonable in the agency's position that
it is more beneficial to have a full-time quality control manager with
assigned responsibility for the quality control inspections. In this regard,
we agree with the agency that a full-time quality control manager who does
not have other responsibilities is more likely than a part-time manager to
give priority to quality control, and is in a better position to ensure that
all inspections are completed in accordance with the schedule, and that the
quality control process overall works effectively and efficiently. We also
share the agency's view that, while it may be beneficial to have some other
employees perform "semi-formal" inspections, such inspections do not take
the place of the formal inspections required by the solicitation's quality
control process. With respect to United's plan to perform the inspections on
a rotating basis, as the agency explains, the number and locations of
required inspections are dictated by AQAS, and the agency specifically
determined that United's staffing was inadequate to satisfy the AQAS
standards. COS-United at 7. This being the case, to the extent United's plan
provided for fewer inspections than AQAS, the agency reasonably concluded
that this did not enhance its proposal.

Subfactor C4-On-Site Staff and Organizational Structure

Evaluation subfactor C4 required offerors to:

(i) Provide a list of the proposed on-site staff and management, identifying
experience and qualifications for each, including any education relative to
custodial/janitorial services.

(ii) Provide an organizational chart and detail the specific decision making
authority of each individual. Include oversight relationship with
subcontractors in the organization chart.

RFP amend. 3, sect. M, at 5. The agency downgraded United's proposal for failing
to indicate how many janitors would be employed on the contract, or to
identify the individuals proposed for on-site key positions, and their
qualifications. The agency was also concerned that United proposed only two
work team site supervisors to manage the performance of all work; the agency
determined that this level of supervision was inadequate to effectively
manage the workforce needed to perform the contract. The agency also found
that United failed to clearly address oversight authority with respect to
its proposed subcontractors; as a result, the agency found it unclear as to
how subcontractors would be managed.

United maintains that the RFP did not require offerors to provide the number
of janitors that will service the contract, or the names and qualifications
of the on-site staff, and that its proposal therefore should not have been
downgraded for these reasons. This argument is without merit. Evaluation
subfactor C4(i), quoted above, specifically called for offerors to provide a
list of the proposed on-site staff, and the experience and qualifications of
each employee. The number of janitors proposed clearly was encompassed by
this factor (the number of janitors would be evident from a listing of
on-site staff), as were the names and qualifications of the proposed staff.
These therefore were proper considerations in the evaluation. See Advanced
Data Concepts, Inc., B-280967.8, B-280967.9, June 14, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 19 at
4.

United also asserts that it did not propose only two site supervisors to
manage the contract--it also proposed designated on-site representatives to
assist in managing the contract work. As the agency points out, however, it
is not clear from United's proposal that the on-site representatives have
workforce management authority. In this regard, while on-site
representatives are referenced in the proposal, their responsibilities are
not clearly described--specifically, the proposal does not distinguish
between the roles of the on-site representatives and the site supervisors
(who are specifically proposed as having management responsibilities)--and
these positions are not listed on the organizational chart. Given the
absence of this information, the agency could reasonably assume that all
management authority was vested in the two site supervisors, and evaluate
the proposal accordingly. (An offeror runs the risk of having its proposal
downgraded where it is inadequately written. McHargue Constr. Co., B-279715,
July 16, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 21 at 6.)

Finally, United asserts that the oversight authority for its proposed
subcontractors was in fact clearly stated in the proposal narrative. The
agency states, however, and our review confirms, that there was a conflict
in United's proposal with respect to subcontractor oversight authority.
Specifically, while the proposal narrative vested authority for managing the
subcontractors in the daytime supervisor, the designated on-sight
representative and the project manager, United Proposal at 22, the project
organization chart vested the same authority in the project manager. Id. at
25. Given this conflict, the agency reasonably concluded that the proposal
was unclear with respect to subcontractor oversight.

OLYMPUS PROTEST

Olympus argues that, based on its overall technical rating of exceptional
and its reasonable price, it should have received the award. In a best value
procurement, where a higher-rated proposal is higher-priced, the agency must
make a tradeoff to determine whether that proposal's technical superiority
is worth its higher cost. H.F. Henderson Indus., B-275017, Jan. 17, 1997,
97-1 CPD para. 27 at 2. The agency may select a lower-priced,
lower-technically-rated proposal if it decides that the cost premium
associated with the higher-rated proposal is not justified, given the
acceptable level of technical competence available at the lower price.
Hydraulics Int'l, Inc., B-284684, B-284684.2, May 24, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 149
at 18. The evaluation scores are merely guides for the selection official,
who must use his or her judgment to determine what the technical difference
between competing proposals might mean to contract performance. Millar
Elevator Serv. Co., B-284870.5, B-284870.6, Jan. 31, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 34 at
4.

Here, the solicitation provided for a best value award, with technical
factors equal in importance to price. In selecting Nova for award, the
agency determined that, notwithstanding Olympus's higher adjectival ratings,
the proposals in fact were overall equal in all areas except experience and
past performance, where the agency determined that Olympus was superior to
Nova. BCM at 14. The agency concluded that Nova had sufficient experience
and past performance to have a high probability of successful performance,
and that Olympus's technical evaluation advantage therefore was not worth
its approximate $[DELETED] additional cost. Olympus takes issue with this
determination, maintaining that the agency disregarded the significant
difference in the two firms' experience and past performance. Again,
however, the agency fully recognized Olympus's superiority in this area, and
made its tradeoff decision in light of this fact. Olympus has not
demonstrated that the agency's conclusions were unreasonable. Thus, we have
no basis to question the award decision. [3]

The protests are denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. United also initially challenged the evaluation of its proposal in a
number of other areas. The agency responded to each of these additional
arguments in its administrative report, explaining why the evaluation in
each case was reasonable. Since the protester did not respond to the
agency's explanation in its comments on the report, we view the additional
raised arguments as abandoned and will not consider them. Westinghouse Gov't
and Envtl. Servs. Co., Inc., B-280928 et al., Dec. 4, 1998, 99-1 CPD para. 3 at
7, n.6.

2. AQAS is a computer software system that assists users in the development
of, among other things, inspection schedules. Users are required to input
information, including the frequencies of performance and the locations of
buildings. Each month, the software generates an inspection schedule that
dictates which buildings must be inspected, the dates of inspection and the
work to be inspected. Agency Supplemental Information, May 1, 2001, at 1.

3. Olympus also complains that, since its proposal had no weaknesses under
subfactors C2 and C4, it should have received exceptional rather than very
good ratings in those areas. As a preliminary matter, the record shows that,
while there were no significant weaknesses in Olympus's proposal with
respect to these subfactors, there were minor weaknesses that reasonably
justified assigning Olympus's proposal other than the highest rating
available. Evaluation-Olympus at 29, 33. More importantly, we reiterate that
the evaluation ratings are merely guides for the selection officials, who
must use their judgment to determine what the technical difference between
competing proposals might mean to contract performance. Millar Elevator
Serv. Co., supra. The agency's award decision here

was based, not on the source selection official's adoption of the TEB's
adjectival ratings, but on the actual identified strengths and weaknesses of
the technical proposals, balanced against the difference in price. BCM at
13-14. This being the case, assigning Olympus's proposal more favorable
adjectival ratings under these subfactors would not change the award
decision.