MarLaw-Arco MFPD Management

B-291875, MarLaw-Arco MFPD Management, April 23, 2003

Decision


Matter of: MarLaw-Arco MFPD Management

File: B-291875

Date: April 23, 2003

Gloria Lawlah-Walker and Anthony J. Savarese for the protester.
Bruce M. Kasson, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Discussions were meaningful where agency provided the offeror with written questions that specifically identified the areas of concern with the offeror's technical proposal and provided the offeror with an opportunity to revise its proposal.

2. Where offeror's price was reasonable based on the agency's price analysis, the agency was not required to inform the offeror during discussions that its price was significantly higher than competing offerors' prices.

3. Protest that incumbent's specific experience in property disposition inventory for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should have resulted in its proposal being rated superior to proposals from offerors with extensive property management service experience but not HUD property disposition inventory experience, is denied, where the solicitation considered property management experience of the type and purpose of these offerors to be comparable to experience managing HUD's property disposition inventory, and the protester's advantages as the incumbent were offset by other aspects of its proposal.

DECISION

MarLaw-Arco MFPD Management, a joint venture, protests the awards to National Housing Group (NHG) and Pinnacle Realty Management under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-OPC-22253, issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for property management services for the agency's property disposition inventory for HUD's Multifamily Property Disposition Centers.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued August 5, 2002, contemplated the award of multiple, fixed-price indefinite quantity contracts (with some cost reimbursement items), for a 2-year base period with 3 option years, in five geographic areas covering all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[1] The RFP, as amended on September 12, provided for a price/technical tradeoff for selecting proposals for award, and listed the following eight technical evaluation factors in descending order of importance:

1. Property Management Experience
2. Past Performance
3. Management Capability and Quality of Proposed Management Plan
4. Experience With and Knowledge of Federal Laws and HUD Regulations
5. Experience in Contract Administration (Purchasing and Subcontracting)
6. Experience in Managing Major Repair/Rehabilitation Programs
7. Qualifications of Proposed Key Personnel
8. Subcontracting Plans/Commitment.

The combined weight of the technical factors was significantly more important than price. Price was to be evaluated based on a weighted unit price, with unit prices for different services receiving different weights based on a formula contained in the RFP. In addition, the agency was to evaluate proposed prices to consider whether they were reasonable, reflected a clear understanding of the requirements, and were consistent with the offerors' proposed technical approaches.

The agency received a number of proposals for each geographic area. After the technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated the proposals, the agency established a competitive range for each area consisting of three proposals for Area 1, and two proposals for each of the remaining areas. MarLaw's proposals were included in the competitive range in each of the five areas. NHG's proposals were in the competitive range for each of the first four areas, and Pinnacle's proposal for Area 5 was in the competitive range for that area.[2] The agency conducted written discussions and requested final proposal revisions. The TEP's final evaluation results for the proposals of MarLaw, NHG and Pinnacle were as follows:[3]

Factor	NHG	MarLaw	Pinnacle
Property Management Experience	Excellent	Good	Good
Past Performance	Excellent	Good	Good
Management Capability/Plan	Good	Fair	Good
Experience (Laws/HUD Regulations)	Good	Excellent	Fair
Experience (Contract Administration)	Fair	Good	Fair
Experience (Repair/Rehab./Maint.)	Good	Good	Fair
Qualifications of Key Personnel	Good	Good	Good
Small Business Participation	Good	Poor	Good
Overall	Good	Good	Good

Agency Report, exh. 13, Final TEP Report, at 3-12, 21-29, 32-50, 53-68.

The evaluated weighted unit prices for the proposals of these three offerors for each geographic area were:[4]

Geographic Area	Government Estimate		NHG		MarLaw		Pinnacle[5]
1	$165.95		$131.98		$197.02
2	(2a) 165.95 (2b) 193.94		(2a) 131.98 (2b) 156.18		(2a) 197.02 (2b) 197.02
3	165.95		131.98		197.02
4	165.95		131.98		206.42
5	(5a) 165.95 (5b) 193.94				(5a) 206.42 (5b) 231.19		(5a) $109.14 (5b) 109.14

Id.



Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. et al. see











[6]



Hydraulics Int'l, Inc.
see See Hydraulics Int'l, Inc. supra





Gemmo Impianti SpA Microcosm, Inc. et al.

[7]




e.g. e.g.







[8]





DevTech Sys., Inc.

---

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] See Accurate Mech. Inc. Serv-Air, Inc.
[7]
[8]