About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-418428 1 (2020-04-07)

handle is hein.gao/gaobaeayo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States 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. Matter of: Acuity-Exemplar, JV File: B-418428 Date: April 7, 2020 Mark J. Blando, Esq., Eckland & Blando LLP, for the protester. Joanna M. Obrochta, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency conducted misleading discussions is denied where, although the protester increased its price in response, it was not competitively prejudiced because the awardee's proposal was higher-rated and lower-priced, even before the discussions. DECISION Acuity-Exemplar, JV, of Oxnard, California, a small business', protests the award of a contract to The Severson Group, of San Marcos, California, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 47PF001 9R01 15, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service, for janitorial services and supplies for the Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building in Chicago, Illinois. Acuity argues that GSA conducted misleading discussions and made an unreasonable source selection decision.2 1 The solicitation was set aside for participants in the Small Business Administration's 8(a) business development program. The protester explains that it is a joint venture between Acuity Total Solutions, Inc. and the incumbent contractor, Exemplar Enterprises, Inc. Protest at 2. 2 GSA argues that a third offeror had the same past performance score as Acuity and a lower price, and therefore our Office should not consider Acuity an interested party. The contemporaneous record provided to our Office documents only the evaluations and pricing submitted by Acuity and Severson. As a result, GSA has not provided a factual basis to support its challenge to Acuity's status as an interested party.