B-204913(1), JUN 7, 1982

B-204913(1): Jun 7, 1982

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

DIGEST: PROTEST ASSERTING THAT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISREGARDED RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA AND CANNOT JUSTIFY SELECTION OF TRASH COLLECTION CONTRACTOR IS DENIED. PROTESTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED SINCE ITS LOW SCORED PROPOSAL WAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PROPOSAL SELECTED. KENILWORTH COMPLAINS THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CANNOT JUSTIFY ITS CHOICE OF URBAN SERVICE AND SUGGESTS THAT THE AWARD WAS NOT BASED ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE RFP. PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FROM URBAN SERVICE AND KENILWORTH. THE EVALUATION FACTORS CONCERNING OFFERORS' QUALIFICATIONS WERE EXPERIENCE. URBAN SERVICE WAS SELECTED AFTER EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS BECAUSE IT WAS REGARDED AS BETTER QUALIFIED AND BECAUSE IT OFFERED TO PERFORM AT LOWER COST THAN DID KENILWORTH ($751.

B-204913(1), JUN 7, 1982

DIGEST: PROTEST ASSERTING THAT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DISREGARDED RFP EVALUATION CRITERIA AND CANNOT JUSTIFY SELECTION OF TRASH COLLECTION CONTRACTOR IS DENIED. PROTESTER DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PREJUDICED SINCE ITS LOW SCORED PROPOSAL WAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PROPOSAL SELECTED.

KENILWORTH TRASH COMPANY:

KENILWORTH TRASH COMPANY PROTESTS THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT TO URBAN SERVICE SYSTEMS, INC. FOR TRASH COLLECTION SERVICES UNDER REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 0040-AA-23-N-2-MR, ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. KENILWORTH COMPLAINS THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CANNOT JUSTIFY ITS CHOICE OF URBAN SERVICE AND SUGGESTS THAT THE AWARD WAS NOT BASED ON THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN THE RFP. WE DENY THE PROTEST.

PROPOSALS WERE RECEIVED FROM URBAN SERVICE AND KENILWORTH. THE RFP PROVIDED THAT VENDORS' PRICES AND QUALIFICATIONS WOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT IN SELECTING AN AWARDEE. THE EVALUATION FACTORS CONCERNING OFFERORS' QUALIFICATIONS WERE EXPERIENCE, MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL CAPABILITY. URBAN SERVICE WAS SELECTED AFTER EVALUATION OF INITIAL PROPOSALS BECAUSE IT WAS REGARDED AS BETTER QUALIFIED AND BECAUSE IT OFFERED TO PERFORM AT LOWER COST THAN DID KENILWORTH ($751,000 VERSUS $803,000).

WE HAVE NO BASIS TO OBJECT TO THE AWARD TO URBAN SERVICE. OFFERORS WERE CLEARLY ADVISED BY THE RFP OF THE CONSIDERATIONS TO BE USED IN MAKING A SELECTION. URBAN SERVICE OFFERED A BETTER PRICE AND ITS PROPOSAL WAS HELD IN HIGHER REGARD THAN WAS KENILWORTH'S. THUS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT KENILWORTH WAS PREJUDICED BY URBAN SERVICE'S SELECTION. KENILWORTH'S PROTEST IS DENIED.

HOWEVER, WE QUESTION WHY THE DISTRICT IN THIS INSTANCE CHOSE TO USE A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT RATHER THAN THE PREFERRED ADVERTISED PROCUREMENT METHOD. THE FACTORS WHICH THE DISTRICT EVALUATED, OTHER THAN PRICE, RELATE PRIMARILY TO RESPONSIBILITY. SIMILAR PROCUREMENTS ARE COMMONLY CONDUCTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USING FORMAL ADVERTISING. WE ARE AWARE OF NO REASON JUSTIFYING THE USE OF A NEGOTIATED PROCUREMENT METHOD IN THIS INSTANCE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE DISTRICT REVIEW WHETHER FORMAL ADVERTISING CAN BE USED IN AWARDING FUTURE PROCUREMENTS OF THIS TYPE.