TITLE: Pro-Mech USA, Inc., B-292092, June 13, 2003
BNUMBER: B-292092
DATE: June 13, 2003
**********************************************************************
Pro-Mech USA, Inc., B-292092, June 13, 2003
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: Pro-Mech USA, Inc.
File: B-292092
Date: June 13, 2003
Edward Tolchin, Esq., Fettmann, Tolchin & Majors, for the protester.
Lee W. Crook, III, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that an agency misevaluated a firm's low priced proposal and
improperly failed to consider the proposal for award is denied where the
record shows that the protester's proposal failed to meet material
solicitation requirements.
DECISION
Pro-Mech USA, Inc. protests the award of a contract to LB&B Associates,
Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07P-02-UBC-1020, issued by
the General Services Administration (GSA), for mechanical operations and
maintenance at the Fritz G. Lanham Federal Building, the United States
Court House, and the Federal Parking Garage, in Fort Worth, Texas. The
protester alleges that GSA improperly evaluated its proposal as
technically unacceptable and as a result failed to consider its much lower
price.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued on September 23, 2002, called for the submission
of
fixed-price proposals by November 6, 2002. The scope of work included all
management, supervision, labor, materials, supplies, and equipment for
mechanical operation and maintenance of the three federal facilities with
a total of 1,229,749 square feet. The performance period was for a
3-year base period with two 3‑year options. Award was to be made
without discussions on a *best value* basis considering the evaluation
factors in descending order of importance of past performance on similar
projects, experience on similar projects, and staffing.
The RFP encouraged offerors to *submit proposals . . .with the most
favorable terms . . . from the very beginning.* RFP S: M P:1.
The solicitation provided that technical quality was significantly more
important than price. Offerors were required to demonstrate that, within
the last 5 years,
they have satisfactorily performed all the services required by the
solicitation.
With respect to staffing, offerors were required to demonstrate that they
have sufficient staffing to satisfactorily perform all the services
required by the solicitation. RFP S: l P: l.b.iv. The RFP contained
requirements for certain on-site personnel including an on-site
supervisor, a designated alternate supervisor in the absence of the
supervisor, and an on-site *clerical/administrative person . . . to be
present to monitor a dedicated contractor provided phone line for the
receipt of service calls or other tenant requests or complaints.* RFP S:
4.
The agency received [DELETED] proposals by the closing date, which were
evaluated by the agency's source selection evaluation board (SSEB).
Pro-Mech offered the lowest evaluated price of [DELETED], but its
technical proposal was rated [DELETED] out of the [DELETED] proposals
received. Agency Report, Tab 8, SSEB Evaluation Report, at 5. As is
relevant here, the evaluators found that
Pro-Mech's staffing plan did not provide for either an on-site clerical
position or a designated on-site alternate supervisor. Further, the
evaluators found that
Pro-Mech's references did not establish that Pro‑Mech had performed
all services required by the RFP. As a result, the SSEB concluded that
Pro-Mech's staffing proposal was deficient because it failed to *address
all the required areas.* Id.
The source selection official approved the SSEB report and selected LB&B,
a significantly higher ranked offeror, as the best value for award. After
receiving a debriefing, Pro-Mech filed this protest with our Office.
Pro-Mech argues that it was misevaluated under staffing because the
requirement for an on-site clerical position was relaxed by an amendment
to the RFP and, therefore, its offer of a call center was acceptable.
Protester's Comments at 2. In this regard, Pro-Mech references the
following question and answer in amendment No. 1 to the RFP:
The last part of paragraph B [the clerical/administrative position].
Do you want a person at each building? Or just 1 person at a central
location for receiving calls?
It is up to the company to tell us how they will provide the services.
If they want one person, they need to propose it that way in their bid.
RFP amend. 1, at 21.
In our view, while the agency's response to the question made clear that
the contractor was not required to provide a clerical position in each
building (that is, three positions), nothing in the response changed the
requirement that the individual be on-site. Therefore, the agency
reasonably concluded that Pro-Mech's proposal, by not proposing even one
on‑site clerical person, did not meet the RFP requirement.
Protester's Comments at 5. Similarly, Pro-Mech does not identify where in
its proposal it offered the required alternate on-site supervisor. In our
view, the record supports the agency's determination that Pro-Mech failed
to propose the staffing required by the solicitation. Accordingly, since
Pro-Mech failed to propose required staffing, its proposal was technically
unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. See Galen Med. Assocs.,
Inc., B-288661.4, B-288661.5, Feb. 25, 2002, 2002 CPD P: 44 at 4.[1]
While Pro-Mech challenges other aspects of the evaluation, since we
conclude that the agency reasonably found that Pro-Mech submitted a
technically unacceptable proposal and could not be considered for award,
we need not address these other issues.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] With respect to the evaluation of Pro-Mech's proposal under the
experience factor, the solicitation required offerors to demonstrate that
they have satisfactorily performed all the services required by the
solicitation. The record shows that
Pro-Mech provided information on [DELETED] prior contracts, [DELETED]
performed by Pro-Mech and [DELETED] by a Pro-Mech executive while with
another company. While Pro-Mech's examples demonstrated some facility
maintenance experience, the projects were not similar with respect to
size, type of facilities, scope of service, or duration. For example,
[DELETED] projects described had a total dollar value of [DELETED] or less
and predominately concerned fire protection services. [DELETED]
contracts, while indicating the performance of some, but not all, of the
services required by the current solicitation, were for facilities of
[DELETED] square feet and [DELETED] square feet (inside and outside),
respectively, far less than the more than 1 million square feet of space
under the current requirement. While Pro-Mech's failure to propose
required staffing provided an adequate basis for the agency to reject
Pro-Mech's proposal, the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded
that Pro-Mech failed to demonstrate in its proposal that it had the
necessary experience performing the required services at comparable
facilities.