B-310331.3, Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc., January 7, 2008
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: Lakeside Escrow & Title Agency, Inc.
James S. DelSordo, Esq., Argus Legal LLC, for the protester.
Courtney B. Minor, Esq., Elisa J. Yochim, Esq., and Russell J. Cohen, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest challenging contracting agency’s evaluation of protester’s proposal and exclusion of proposal from competitive range is denied where agency’s evaluation and competitive range determination were reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria.
DECISION
Lakeside Escrow & Title
Agency, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range
under request for proposals (RFP) No. R-CHI-00895, issued by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for real estate closing services in the
state of Michigan.
BACKGROUND
HUD, through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA),
administers the Single Family Mortgage Insurance Program, which helps low- and
moderate-income individuals and families achieve homeownership. Upon the default and foreclosure of an
FHA-insured loan, the mortgage lender files a claim for insurance benefits and,
in exchange for payment of the claim, the lender conveys the foreclosed
property to HUD. The agency, by means of
a management and marketing contractor, then manages and sells a sizable
inventory of single family homes. In
order to complete these sales, HUD requires closing agent contractors to
perform all necessary closing activities on its behalf. The solicitation here involves HUD’s
procurement of real estate closing services for single family properties owned
by the agency located throughout
The RFP, issued on
The RFP contained detailed instructions regarding the
submission of proposals.[2] Specifically, the technical approach
submission was required to demonstrate the offeror’s ability to carry out and
manage the work to be performed and to ensure the quality of performance. The technical proposal was also to be clear,
concise, and sufficiently detailed so as to substantiate the validity of an
offeror’s stated claims. Further, the
RFP stated that proposals should not simply rephrase or restate the performance
work statement requirements, but rather, must provide convincing rationales
showing how the offeror intended to meet the requirements. Offerors were also instructed to assume that
HUD had no prior knowledge of their facilities and/or experience, and that the
agency’s evaluation would be based on the information included within the
proposals.
Twenty-two offerors, including
Acceptable |
The proposal
contains no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The evaluator is confident that the offeror
can successfully perform the contract. |
Unacceptable, but capable of being made acceptable |
The offer
contains enough deficiencies and/or significant weaknesses to question the
offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. However, the evaluator believes the offeror
may be able to remedy enough of the deficiencies and weaknesses through
discussions to make the offer acceptable.
|
Unacceptable |
The deficiencies
and weaknesses are great and/or numerous enough that any attempt to remedy
them through discussions with the offeror would be equivalent to allowing the
offeror to substantially rewrite its proposal. |
Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, TEP Guide, at 6-7, 12; Tab 10, Competitive Range Determination, at 1.
The TEP’s evaluation of the six highest-rated proposals and Lakeside’s were as follows:
Offeror |
Technical/Mgmt Approach |
Prior Experience |
Past Performance |
Overall |
1 |
Good |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Acceptable |
2 |
Fair |
Good |
Excellent |
Acceptable |
3 |
Excellent |
Fair |
Good |
Acceptable |
4 |
Good |
Fair |
Fair |
Capable |
5 |
Fair |
Fair |
Fair |
Capable |
6 |
Fair |
Fair |
Fair |
Capable |
* * * * * |
||||
|
Poor |
Fair |
Fair |
Unacceptable |
The TEP identified numerous weaknesses and deficiencies in
As to the prior experience factor, the TEP found that
With regard to
The contracting officer subsequently decided that
discussions with offerors were necessary, and established a competitive range
consisting of the three most-highly-rated proposals. The agency eliminated
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, a
protest challenges an agency’s evaluation and exclusion of a proposal from the competitive range,
we first review the propriety of the agency’s evaluation of the proposal, and then turn to the agency’s
competitive range determination. Government
Telecomms., Inc., B-299542.2,
As explained in
detail below, based upon our review of the record, HUD’s evaluation of
With regard to HUD’s evaluation of its proposal under the
technical and management approach factor, the protester contends that, contrary
to the TEP’s findings, the proposal clearly described how the firm would be
able to handle the increase in work (i.e., closing services for
Notwithstanding the offeror’s view that its proposal had
adequately addressed the technical and management approach factor,
Given our
determination that the agency’s evaluation of Lakeside’s proposal was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and in view of the agency’s
conclusion that the proposal was unacceptable as a result of the weaknesses and
deficiencies identified in the evaluation, we find that it likewise was reasonable for the agency to conclude
that Lakeside’s proposal had no reasonable
chance for award
The protest is
denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1]
The RFP also established the agency’s evaluation rating scheme. Specifically, with regard to the technical
and management approach factor, proposals were to be rated as either
“Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Unsatisfactory,” while offerors’ prior
experience was to be evaluated as either “Excellent,” “Good,” “Fair,” or
“Poor,” and past performance was to be evaluated as either “Excellent,” “Good,”
“Fair,” “Unknown,” or “Poor.” The
solicitation also included definitions for each adjectival rating.
[2]
The RFP required each proposal to consist of two parts--a technical and
management approach proposal, and a business proposal. The technical proposal was in turn to be
structured as follows: 1) technical and
management plan; 2) staffing plan; 3) quality control plan; 4) prior
experience; and 5) past performance. The
solicitation also set forth a detailed narrative of the various criteria that
offerors were to expressly address in each section of their technical
proposals.
[3]
The TEP cited, for example, that
[4]
The TEP found that
[5]
The TEP also found that, on a collective basis,
[6]
Specifically,
[7]
In fact, the protester acknowledges that while the individuals listed in its
proposal were “committed to the contract,” Comments at 5, they would not be
spending 100 percent of their time performing the
[8]
Lakeside also argues that the agency’s technical evaluation was improper
because, among other things, Lakeside was the incumbent HUD closing services
contractor for other states and regions, and its proposal had been found technically
acceptable and included in the competitive range when HUD had previously sought
real estate closing services for Michigan in four separate areas. The protester also contends that HUD improperly
failed to conduct discussions and inform it of the proposal deficiencies prior
to making a competitive range determination.
Protest at 5-8. The agency
specifically addressed all these issues in its report to our Office,
discussing, for example, why