TITLE:  Portfolio Disposition Management Group, LLC, B-293105.7, November 12, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293105.7
DATE:  November 12, 2004
**********************************************************************
   DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE                                                
                                                                              
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective      
Order.  This version has been approved for public release.                 

   Decision

   A 

   Matter of:   Portfolio Disposition Management Group, LLC

   A 

   File:            B-293105.7

   A 

   Date:              November 12, 2004

   A 

   James S. DelSordo, Esq., Halloran & Sage, for the protester.

   J. Alex Ward, Esq., Martina E. Vandenberg, Esq., and Ayodele T. Carroo,
Esq., Jenner & Block, for Southwest Alliance of Asset Managers, LLC, an
intervenor.

   R.  Rene Dupuy, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the
agency.

   Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   A 

   Protest that agency failed to bring a certain weakness to protester*s
attention during discussions, and that discussions therefore were
inadequate, is denied where record shows that agency in fact brought the
weakness to protester*s attention, and rated protester*s proposal as good
after reviewing the protester*s revisions; agency was not required to
raise the weakness in repeated rounds of discussions. 

   DECISION

   A 

   Portfolio Disposition Management Group, LLC (PDMG) protests the award of
two contracts to Southwest Alliance of Asset Managers, LLC (SAAM) under
request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22505, issued by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to obtain management and marketing
services in connection with the disposition of single-family homes and
other property owned by HUD.  PDMG asserts that the agency failed to
provide it with adequate discussions, and misevaluated SAAM*s price
proposals.[1]

   We deny the protest.

   A 

   The solicitation contemplated the award of indefinite-delivery,
indefinite-quantity, fixed-unit-price contracts in 24 geographic regions
for management and marketing services in connection with the disposition
of single-family homes owned by, or in the custody of, HUD.   At issue in
this protest are the contracts for Denver Area 5, which covers properties
located in New Mexico and north Texas, and Denver Area 6, which covers
properties located in south Texas.  The RFP advised offerors that the
agency would make award on a *best value* basis, considering price and six
nona**price evaluation factors, with the non-price factors considered
significantly more important than price.  Prices were to be evaluated for
reasonableness.

   A 

   The agency received numerous proposals for both areas and, after
evaluating them, established a competitive range for each area.  The
agency engaged in two rounds of discussions, at the conclusion of which
PDMG*s and SAAM*s proposals for both areas received technical ratings of
excellent with very low risk.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 9, at 2; exh. 10,
at 2.  In Area 5, PDMG*s final price was $104,244,396, while SAAM*s was
$67,384,290.  AR, exh. 12, attach. 2.  In Area 6, PDMG*s final price was
$62,802,864, while SAAM*s was $39,619,140.  AR, exh. 13, attach 1.  On the
basis of these evaluation results, the agency awarded contracts to SAAM
for both areas, finding that its and PDMG*s proposals were technically
equal, and that SAAM*s low prices therefore made its proposal the best
value.  AR, exh. 11, at 3, 7.

   A 

   PDMG asserts that the agency improperly failed to conduct adequate
discussions for the Area 5 and 6 awards and, as a result, treated offerors
unequally.  Specifically, PDMG maintains that, after the initial rounds of
discussions--during which the agency asked PDMG about its experience as it
related to performing the RFP*s mortgagee compliance requirements--the
agency continued to have a concern in the area, but did not again raise it
with PDMG.  The protester contrasts this with the agency*s actions in
conducting discussions with SAAM; in both the first and second rounds of
discussions, the agency pointed out to SAAM that its prices for certain
line items appeared low.  PDMG asserts that the agency*s repeated
discussions with SAAM in the area of price, compared to the single round
of technical discussions with PDMG covering the agency*s experience
concern, evidence disparate treatment.

   A 

   This argument is without merit.  PDMG*s proposals received good ratings in
the area of experience following the agency*s discussions in the area. 
AR, exhs. 9 at 80, 10 atA 57.  Agencies are not required to discuss every
element of a technically acceptable proposal that receives less than the
maximum possible score, nor are they required to afford an offeror
multiple opportunities to cure a weakness remaining in a proposal that
previously was the subject of discussions.  Bioqual, Inc., B-259732.2.,
Ba**259732.3, May 15, 1995, 95-1 CPD P 243 atA 4a**5.  In any case, the
record shows that the two firms were given the same opportunity to revise
their proposals as to both technical matters and price during the first
round of discussions, AR, exhs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and that revisions for both
firms were limited to the pricing proposals during the second round.  Id. 
Thus, contrary to PDMG*s assertion, both firms received virtually
identical discussions, albeit in different proposal areas depending on the
particulars of their offers.[2]

   A 

   PDMG asserts that the agency*s price reasonableness evaluation failed to
take cognizance of the fact that SAAM*s prices were too low.  This
argument is without merit.  A price reasonableness evaluation is generally
conducted for the purpose of ensuring that a firm*s prices are not
unreasonably high, as opposed to unreasonably low, since the contractor,
not the government, bears the risk of loss in the event that the firm*s
prices are too low to cover the cost of performance.  Sterling Servs.,
Inc., Ba**291625, B-291626, Jan. 14, 2003, 2003 CPD P 26 at 3.  To the
extent that PDMG is asserting that the agency should have reviewed SAAM*s
prices for realism, the protest is untimely, since the solicitation did
not provide for a realism analysis; if PDMG believed such an analysis was
necessary, it was required to protest on this basis prior to the closing
time for receipt of offers.  4 C.F.R. S 21.2(a)(1) (2004).

   A 

   The protest is denied.

   A 

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   A 

   A 

   A 

   A 

   A 

   ------------------------

   [1] PDMG raised a large number of other assertions in its initial
protest.  The agency provided a detailed response to these issues in its
report, and the protester did not address the issues in its comments on
the report.  Under these circumstances, we deem those issues abandoned. 
Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr.A 9, 2004, 2004
CPD P104 at 8.

   [2] Moreover, since PDMG*s proposals received a final rating of excellent
with low riska**a**the highest rating available--it is not apparent how
PDMG could improve its ratings even if it were provided further
discussions; there thus would be no basis for finding that PDMG was
competitively prejudiced.  See Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., Ba**294229,
Ba**294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD P__ at 7.