United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

Decision

Matter of: Main Building Maintenance, Inc.

File: B-406615; B-406615.2; B-406615.3

Date: July 23, 2012

Ronald J. Shaw, Esq., The Shaw Corporation-Attorneys at Law, for the protester.

LTC Dana J. Chase, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of agency evaluation and determination to exclude protester’s revised 

proposal from the competitive range is denied where protester fails to show that 

either was unreasonable.

DECISION

Main Building Maintenance, Inc. (MBM) of San Antonio, Texas protests the 

exclusion of its revised proposal from the competitive range by the Department of 

the Army, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-11-R-0019, for 

healthcare housekeeping and related services at the William Beaumont Army 

Medical Center (WBAMC) Medical Treatment Facility (MTF), and other MTFs 

located in the health service area of Fort Bliss, Texas. 

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP was issued as a competitive small business set-aside and contemplated

the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity performance-based contract,

with fixed-price contract line items, for a maximum period of 5 years. RFP 

amend. 8, at 67. The selected contractor will perform a broad array of healthcare 

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.
Page 2 B-406615 et al.

housekeeping1 and related services as described in the solicitation’s performance

work statement (PWS); all requirements in the PWS were stated to be mandatory. 

Id. at 66, 116. 

The RFP provided that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically 

acceptable basis. Id. at 108-109. The solicitation identified two evaluation factors: 

(1) technical acceptability and (2) price. The technical acceptability factor consisted 

of two equally-weighted subfactors: (1) technical approach, and (2) key personnel 

and qualifications. Id. at 128. The RFP also stated that the technical evaluation 

would consider whether the offeror’s proposal demonstrated (1) compliance with the 

solicitation requirements, and (2) understanding of the solicitation requirements. Id.

at 129. Each technical proposal would be assigned a rating of either acceptable 

(proposal clearly meets the minimum solicitation requirements) or unacceptable 

(proposal does not clearly meet the minimum solicitation requirements). Id. 

As a general matter, the RFP indicated that proposals were to be “clear, concise, 

and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the 

validity of stated claims.” Id. at 109. Offerors were cautioned that they “should not 

simply rephrase or restate the government’s requirements” in their proposals; 

instead, offerors must furnish convincing narratives describing “how” they intend to 

meet these requirements. Id.

Under the technical approach subfactor, offerors were to demonstrate how they 

would perform the required services by providing “specific narrative details and/or 

descriptions of actual methods, processes, and procedures.” Id. at 116. Offerors 

were also instructed to include the following supplements: (a) transition plan; 

(b) healthcare housekeeping procedures manual; (c) healthcare housekeeping 

policies manual; (d) sample work schedules; (e) staffing plan; (f) supply 

management plan; and (g) quality control. Id. at 111, 116-118.

Under the key personnel and qualifications subfactor, the RFP required offerors to 

provide “specific details and/or descriptions of proposed key personnel and 

qualifications policies and procedures” to demonstrate the offeror’s “compliance and 

understanding of the minimum PWS key personnel and qualification requirements.” 

Id. at 118. As to price, the RFP stated that proposed prices would be evaluated to 

determine if they were fair, reasonable, and balanced. Id. at 132. Offerors were 

warned that the failure to satisfy one or more of the standards may render the 

proposal technically unacceptable. Id. at 110, 129. 

On January 17, 2012, the agency received four proposals, including the proposal 

submitted by MBM, the then incumbent contractor. Technical proposals were 

 1 According to the RFP, healthcare housekeeping services are mission-essential 

functions which must be performed under all circumstances. RFP amend. 8, at 74.
Page 3 B-406615 et al.

evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB) which assigned 

“deficiencies,” “significant weaknesses,” and “weaknesses” ratings to each proposal 

who then considered those assessments in determining the appropriate rating for 

each proposal under the technical evaluation factor and subfactors. Agency Report 

(AR) exh. 6, Initial SSEB Report, at 6-18. The evaluators’ assessments were 

supported by narrative discussions for each offeror under each evaluation factor 

and subfactors. 

MBM’s proposal was initially rated unacceptable under the technical approach 

subfactor, and acceptable under the key personnel and qualifications subfactor. In 

assigning the protester’s proposal an unacceptable rating, the SSEB identified 

13 deficiencies, 2 significant weaknesses, and 4 weaknesses. Id. For example, 

with respect to factor 1, Technical Acceptability, subfactor 1.1, Technical Approach 

Safety and Health Plan, the SSEB noted that MBM “failed to provide convincing 

rationale of how the offeror will meet” PWS 1.17, Safety and Health Plan, and also 

“failed to provide a list of hazardous material . . .” as required by the solicitation. Id.

at 7.

Similarly, regarding factor 1, Technical Acceptability, subfactor 1.1., Technical 

Approach, Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), the SSEB assigned a deficiency on 

the basis that MBM’s proposal did not furnish a “convincing rationale of how the 

offeror will meet [the] PWS 1.18 Emergency Operations Plan requirements” and 

further noted that the protester did not provide “a written plan describing how it will 

continue to perform the essential contractor services during periods of crisis” as set 

forth in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement provision 252.237-

7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Services. Id. at 8. The evaluators also 

assessed a deficiency because the protester’s sample work schedules (PWS 5.5,

Type 1 Services2

) evidenced a “lack of understanding” of the required services.3 Id.

at 12-13. 

The contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority for this 

procurement, advised MBM that its proposal had been included in the competitive 

range and provided MBM with a detailed analysis of the agency’s evaluation of its

proposal in the form of evaluation notices (EN). The ENs accompanying the 

competitive range determination letter identified each of the “deficiencies,” 

 2 Type 1 services are described as healthcare housekeeping services that are 

generally performed in the operating rooms, scrub rooms and prep rooms 

associated with the operating room, recovery rooms, central materiel service, labor 

and delivery, and, recovery and postpartum rooms. RFP amend. 8, at 86.

3 The above description of deficiencies is not a comprehensive list of all the 

evaluated weaknesses in MBM’s proposal; rather, for purposes of this decision, we 

have only listed representative examples.
Page 4 B-406615 et al.

“significant weaknesses,” and “weaknesses” assigned to MBM’s proposal under the 

technical evaluation subfactors.4

 AR exh. 7, Competitive Range DeterminationDiscussions (March 1, 2012).

Subsequent to the written discussions described above, the agency and MBM 

engaged in oral discussions during which the contracting officer discussed each 

deficiency, significant weakness, and weakness identified in the list of 20 ENs 

previously provided to MBM. Id. exh. 9, Oral Discussions Letter (Mar. 7, 2012). 

At the conclusion of discussions, MBM submitted its revised proposal, which was 

again evaluated for technical acceptability. The SSEB continued to rate it as 

technically unacceptable under the technical approach subfactor, noting that 3 of 

the 13 identified deficiencies remained unresolved because the protester’s narrative 

responses continued to lack the required detail to alleviate the government’s 

concerns. The evaluators also identified 4 significant weaknesses, and 1 weakness 

in the protester’s revised proposal. Id. exh. 12, Supplemental SSEB Report, at 16. 

The contracting officer concurred with the SSEB’s evaluation findings, and 

eliminated MBM from the competition. Id. exh. 13, Contracting Officer’s 

Memorandum for Record, at 4. Upon learning of the agency’s decision, MBM filed 

the subject protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as 

unacceptable and arguing that the agency failed to conduct meaningful 

discussions.5

DISCUSSION

The determination of whether a proposal is in the competitive range is principally a 

matter within the judgment of the contracting agency. Dismas Charities, Inc., 

B-284754, May 22, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 84 at 3. We will review that judgment--and 

the evaluation judgments on which it was based--only to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and 

regulations. Grove Resource Solutions, Inc.

 4 The contracting officer’s March 1 letter reiterated that “a rating of no less than 

“Acceptable” must be received for all sub-factors and components” in order to be 

considered for award. RFP amend. 8, at 128-129; AR exh. 7, Competitive Range 

Determination-Discussions, at 1 (March 1, 2012).

, B-296228, B-296228.2, July 1, 2005, 

5 The protester also complains that the agency utilized unstated evaluation factors 

by using adjectival assessments of “deficiency” and “weakness” to determine 

whether proposals were acceptable or unacceptable under each technical factor 

and subfactor. This allegation is simply without merit. The adjectival evaluation 

tools about which the protester complains were merely used to guide the agency’s 

evaluation of technical acceptability--they did not introduce new or unstated 

evaluation criteria. 
Page 5 B-406615 et al.

2005 CPD ¶ 133 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s 

evaluation does not show that it lacked a reasonable basis. 

MBM first takes issue with the agency’s attribution of a deficiency under the 

subfactor pertaining to the safety and health plan requirements of PWS 1.17. 

According to the protester, its initial and revised proposals together demonstrate the 

firm’s compliance with, and understanding of, the solicited safety and health plan 

requirements. In this regard, MBM argues that the SSEB’s assessment of a 

continued deficiency was unreasonably “based only on an evaluation” of its 

response to the discussion item and failed to consider all the information contained 

in its proposal. Protester’s Comments at 8. Moreover, the protester alleges that the 

solicitation did not require the level of detail expected by the agency and that the 

agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions regarding this deficiency. Id. at 11. 

Our review leads us to conclude that the agency’s evaluation in this regard was 

reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. As noted above, the 

RFP required offerors to submit clear and concise proposals with sufficient detail to 

“provide a convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet” the 

agency’s requirements. Moreover, offerors were to provide specific narrative details 

or descriptions of actual methods, processes, and procedures that they would use 

to meet the agency’s requirements. 

With respect to PWS 1.17, the RFP established various specific safety and health 

related requirements. For example, the RFP established that the contractor shall 

comply with the WBAMC Hazard Communication Program, the WBAMC Regulation 

385-10 Safety, and WBAMC Pamphlet 385-1 Fire Prevention and Protection Plan. 

RFP amend. 8, at 74. Although MBM’s proposal represented that it would comply 

with these requirements, the record reflects that the protester did not provide any 

further detail regarding how it intended to comply with these requirements. 

Consequently, given the lack of narrative details or description explaining how it 

would comply with the specific safety requirements established by PWS 1.17, the 

agency reasonably concluded that MBM failed to provide a convincing rationale of 

how it would meet the agency’s requirements.

Similarly, the agency reasonably determined that MBM failed to adequately address 

how it would meet the requirements associated with PWS 1.18, EOP. In this regard 

PWS 1.18, EOP, provides that the contractor’s key personnel shall be thoroughly 

familiar with the WBAMC EOP, which was identified in the solicitation as Annex J, 

and provides detailed instructions pertaining to the provision of continuous medical 

logistics support during emergency events. Additionally, PWS 1.18 requires that all 

contractor employees shall be trained to fully understand their responsibilities 

relative to each emergency plan, that healthcare housekeeping services are 

considered “mission-essential functions” and that the contractor shall be required to 

perform to the extent allowed during all emergency situations. Notwithstanding 

these detailed requirements, the record reflects that MBM’s proposal merely 
Page 6 B-406615 et al.

provided that it would conduct training with respect to “The Company’s Safety and 

Health Plan and Facility Emergency Operation Plan (EOP),” that the plans “will be 

available for Employees to review,” and that project management would be familiar 

with all aspects of the EOP, would keep employees up to date on new 

requirements, and reinforce existing ones. AR exh. 4, MBM’s Proposal, at 15. The 

agency found MBM’s response inadequate because it provided no details regarding 

the implementation of the PWS requirement and thus did not suggest that MBM 

understood, or was capable of meeting the agency’s requirements. While the 

protester may ultimately disagree with the agency’s assessments in this regard, we 

have no basis to conclude that they were unreasonable.6 

To the extent MBM argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions 

with it by failing to identify each element of its proposed technical approach that the 

agency considered to be insufficiently detailed, the requirement for meaningful 

discussions is satisfied when an agency leads an offeror into the areas of its 

proposal requiring amplification or revision; all-encompassing discussions are not 

required, nor is the agency obligated to “spoon-feed” an offeror as to each and 

every item that could be revised to improve its proposal. ITT Indus. Space Sys., 

LLC, B-309964, B-309964.2, Nov. 9, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 217 at 12. Accordingly, we 

find this argument to be without merit where the record clearly establishes that the 

agency raised all of its concerns, to include all deficiencies and weaknesses, in 

great detail through the numerous ENs and oral discussions.

 6 As a related matter, the agency properly concluded that MBM failed to provide an 

adequate plan addressing the continuation of essential contractor services during 

periods of crisis, as required by the RFP. RFP at 127. The agency alerted the 

protester to the fact that it did not include such a plan in its initial proposal, and 

while the protester’s revised proposal included a “Continuity of Essential Services 

Plan,” the record reflects that the plan was deficient because it did not meet the 

minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation. Moreover, the protester is 

misplaced in its efforts to conveniently recast this plan as its “Emergency 

Preparedness Plan” to support its assertion that the agency failed to consider 

relevant information contained in this plan in its evaluation of MBM’s proposal with 

respect to PWS 1.18. Our review leads us to conclude that the plan at issue does 

not address the detailed requirements of WBAMC EOP, Annex J, with which the 

contractor’s key personnel were to be thoroughly familiar pursuant to PWS 1.18. 

Thus, the protester’s references to this plan do not demonstrate that the agency 

failed to account for relevant information when it assessed MBM with a deficiency 

for failing to meaningfully address PWS 1.18. In addition, accepting MBM’s 

arguments in this regard would necessarily mean that the protester did not provide 

any plan to address the continuation of essential contractor services, let alone a 

deficient plan, as found by the agency. 
Page 7 B-406615 et al.

In sum, based on our review of the entire record and considering all of the 

arguments raised by the protester challenging its unacceptable rating under the 

technical acceptability factor and subfactors, including the examples discussed 

above, we find no basis to question the agency’s evaluation of MBM’s proposal. 

MBM’s complaints constitute mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation and, 

as such, do not provide a basis for sustaining the protest. Fedcar Co., Ltd., 

B-310980 et al., Mar. 25, 2008, 2008 CPD ¶ 70 at 6. 

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel