TITLE: B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007
BNUMBER: B-296741.14; B-296741.15
DATE: April 20, 2007
*************************************************************************
B-296741.14; B-296741.15, Olympus Building Services, Inc., April 20, 2007

   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: Olympus Building Services, Inc.

   File: B-296741.14; B-296741.15

   Date: April 20, 2007

   Grace Bateman, Esq., and Amanda Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for the
   protester.

   Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Pamela A. Reynolds, Esq., Epstein Becker &
   Green, PC, for Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., an intervenor.

   Frank A. March, Esq., Department of the Army, 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. Protest that agency improperly evaluated awardee's security awareness
   plan is denied where agency reasonably found that information provided by
   awardee to address agency's concerns raised during discussions was
   adequate.

   2. Agency's determination that awardee's proposed price was not so low as
   to present a performance risk was reasonable where agency found price
   realistic based on comparison of awardee's proposed price to those of
   other offerors.

   DECISION

   Olympus Building Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rowe
   Contracting Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
   HHM402-05-R-0017, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for
   janitorial services at the DIA Analysis Center. Olympus challenges the
   proposal evaluation and best value determination.

   We deny the protest.

   The solicitation, issued on April 14, 2005, contemplated the award of a
   fixed-price contract and provided for award on a "best value" basis
   considering two technical evaluation factors--technical and
   management--past performance, and price. With respect to price, the
   solicitation advised that total prices found to be unrealistically low
   would be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the
   complexity and risk in meeting contract requirements and would not be
   considered for award. RFP at 40.

   DIA initially made award to The Ravens Group on April 14, 2005. However,
   that award was followed by a series of protests by various offerors under
   the solicitation and corrective actions by DIA which resulted in
   reevaluations and different award determinations. In the final evaluation,
   the technical evaluation board (TEB) rated Rowe's and Olympus's proposals
   excellent under the technical factors, and rated Rowe excellent and
   Olympus good for past performance. Rowe's price of $19,217,512 was low,
   and Olympus's price of $19,775,058 second low. The source selection
   authority (SSA) performed a best value analysis and selected Rowe for
   award based on its low price. Olympus protests this award decision.

   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 and applicable statues and regulations.
   Phillips Med. Sys. of N. Am., B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD para.
   129 at 2. We have reviewed the record and find that all of Olympus's
   arguments are without merit and that the evaluation and source selection
   were unobjectionable. We discuss several of Olympus's arguments below.

   TECHNICAL EVALUATION

   Olympus asserts that Rowe's proposal should not have been rated excellent
   under the technical factors because it did not include a required security
   awareness plan. In this regard, in evaluating Rowe's initial proposal, the
   TEB noted that Rowe had not provided a security awareness plan; the agency
   pointed this out to Rowe as a weakness during discussions. Letter from
   Agency to Rowe, Nov. 8, 2005, at 1. In response, in its final proposal
   revision (FPR), Rowe provided a security awareness plan comprised of a
   short statement explaining, among other things, that Rowe was familiar
   with current Defense Security Services and DIA Regulations and security
   manuals, and stating that Rowe would comply with all DIA security
   policies. The FPR also included copies of several documents, including an
   Annual Security Awareness Briefing, a Refresher Security Briefing, and a
   Security Awareness Bulletin (self inspection handbook for contractors).
   The TEB determined that this information was sufficient to respond to its
   original concern. TEB Evaluation at 8. Olympus maintains that the
   information should not have been deemed sufficient because it did not
   include a narrative explaining how each of the included documents would be
   utilized during performance.

   Here, the RFP did not require that the security awareness plan be
   presented in any particular format or include any particular information;
   thus, the fact that the plan could have included additional information
   did not require the agency to find it deficient. The plan Rowe presented
   included information addressing security awareness and, given the absence
   from the RFP of detailed informational requirements, we think the agency
   reasonably could determine that this information was sufficient to address
   its concerns. Olympus's disagreement with the agency's conclusion is not
   sufficient to establish that the evaluation is unreasonable. Weber
   Cafeteria Servs., B-290085.2, June 17, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 99 at 4.

   Olympus challenges DIA's evaluation of its past performance as good,
   rather than excellent. However, in reaching her award decision, the SSA
   specifically noted that she would select Rowe for award even if Olympus
   were rated excellent for past performance, since the two proposals then
   would be rated the same for the non-price factors, and Rowe's would remain
   lower in price. SSD at 15. Thus, Olympus was not competitively prejudiced
   by any error in the past performance evaluation. See Statistica, Inc., v.
   Christopher, 102 F. 3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Hot Shot Express,
   Inc., B-290482, Aug. 2, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 139 at 5.

   PRICE EVALUATION

   Olympus maintains that, in evaluating Rowe's proposed price, DIA
   unreasonably failed to consider the performance risk inherent in Rowe's
   failure to include price increases for supplies and equipment over the
   5-year term of the contract.

   Where, as here, a fixed-price contract is to be awarded, a solicitation
   may provide for the use of a price realism analysis for the limited
   purpose of measuring an offeror's understanding of the requirements, or
   assessing the risk inherent in a proposal. Rodgers Travel, Inc., B-291785,
   Mar. 12, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 60 at 4; Star Mountain, Inc., B-285883, Oct.
   25, 2000, 2000 CPD para. 189 at 2. The nature and extent of such an
   analysis are matters within the agency's discretion; our review of a
   realism analysis is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Id. In this regard, the
   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) recognizes a number of price analysis
   techniques that are adequate to perform a price realism analysis in a
   fixed-price contract context, including comparing the price in question to
   other offerors' prices. FAR sect. 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

   The analysis here was unobjectionable. Olympus's argument is based on the
   premise that DIA was required to consider the realism of certain
   elements--specifically, supplies and equipment--of Rowe's total price.
   However, the solicitation did not provide that the agency would break out
   different pricing elements in conducting the realism analysis; rather, it
   provided that "Offers that are unrealistically low in total price will be
   considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and
   risk in meeting contract requirements. . . ." RFP at 40. Consistent with
   the RFP, the contracting officer compared Rowe's total price to the total
   prices of the other offerors, including Olympus; while Rowe's price was 15
   to 20 percent lower than two of the offerors' prices, it was very similar
   to Olympus's price. Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 13, 14. The SSA
   also determined, independent of the price analysis, that Rowe's excellent
   past performance rating suggested that award to Rowe would not present any
   significant performance risk. Id. at 16. We conclude that the contracting
   officer's analysis provided a reasonable basis for her to conclude that
   Rowe's price was not too low and did not present a performance risk.

   BEST VALUE DETERMINATION

   Olympus complains that the SSA's best value determination improperly was
   based, in part, on the number of employees offerors proposed to perform
   the contract. Olympus asserts that this was improper because it was not
   stated as an evaluation factor.

   This argument is without merit. First, the record shows that the agency
   noted the offerors' staffing only in the context of the price evaluation.
   SSD at 9-11, 15. We see nothing improper in an agency's considering the
   number of personnel that will be provided under a contract--that is, what
   the agency is getting for its money--when comparing proposed prices. In
   any case, we will not sustain a protest absent competitive prejudice, that
   is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions,
   it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Parmatic
   Filter Corp., B-285288.3, B-285288.4, Mar. 30, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 71 at
   11. Here, even if we found that Olympus's argument had merit, it is clear
   that the award decision would not be affected, since Olympus's proposal
   already received the highest available technical rating, notwithstanding
   its staffing. SSD at 9-11, 15. Olympus therefore was not prejudiced by any
   evaluation error in this area.

   Olympus argues that the contracting officer did not independently
   determine that Rowe's proposal was complete, and instead relied upon the
   TEB's findings. However, there is nothing improper in a contracting
   officer's relying on evaluation results provided by the technical
   evaluators. See Pan Am World Servs., Inc.; Base Maint. Support Group;
   Holmes & Narver Servs., Inc., B-231840 et al., Nov. 7, 1988, 88-2 CPD
   para. 446 at 21-22; Sabreliner Corp., B-242023, B-242043.2, Mar. 25, 1991,
   91-1 CPD para. 326 at 11.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel