Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

o

I concur with the TEP's evaluation and find these to be strengths and advantages to The Ravens Group's proposal. However, its price proposal was the second highest or the fourth lowest of the five final offerors. B. Past Performance Evaluation

The Government evaluated the proposals using the adjectival rating system provided in the solicitation. It should be noted that the RFP lists Past Performance as both an evaluation factor and also as a sub-sub-factor of the Technical evaluation factor. Consistent with the RFP, the Past Performance/Relevant Experience sub-sub-factor was evaluated as 16.66% of the overall Technical evaluation factor. In evaluating the Past Performance/Relevant Experience sub-sub-factor, the TEP evaluated the relevant experience identified by the offerors within their proposals. Once it was used to. obtain the overall Technical evaluation, the Past Performance/Relevant Experience rating of the Offerors~ technical proposals was combined with the past performance questionnaires received from the offerors' references to derive an overall rating for the Past Performance evaluation factor. The Government evaluated Past Performance of the offerors using the adjectival ratings and methods described in the RFP. Below is a summary of the ratings received by the companies for the Past Performance evaluation factor:

57"1
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104 12

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 2 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Past Performance Evaluation Summary COMPANY D&A NOSLOT OLYMPUS ROWE THE RAVENS GROUP RATING Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

As the new Source Selection Authority for this procurement, I have reviewed the TEP's technical evaluations of Past Performance/Relevant Experience and past performance questionnaires and I concur with the TEP's evaluation. I find that all five offerors are 'EXCELLENTH under the Past Performance evaluation factor. SECTION IV. PRICE/COST ANALYSIS

PRICE ANALYSIS: The prices proposed by the five offerors in their final proposals are as follows: Price Summary COMPANY ROWE NOSLOT OLYMPUS THE RAVENS GROUP 'D&A Price analysis was based on FAR 15.404-i(b) (2) (i) and the solicitation. While all prices submitted by offerors were deemed tO be realistic, not all prices were deemed to be reasonable. Labor rates proposed by the final five offerors were compared to the Wage Determination issued by the Department of Labor, and the equipment and material were compared to the GSA schedule price.. ROWE: Rowe submitted the lowest priced offer. However, I note TOTAL COST

The new SSA feels that there is a risk to the-Government based on above analysis.
NOSLOT: As the second lowest offeror, NOSLOT's price of is slightly higher than Rowe, the lowest offeror's

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104

13

572

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 3 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

price of However, the price differential between Rowe's and NOSLOT'S proposals is or the entire base period and four option years. I also note that NOSLOT does OLYMPUS: Olympus submitted the third lowest priced offer. Its price is considered reasonable and realistic. RAVENS: Although, considered reasonable and realistic, Ravens offered price is still an average of $ igher than the above three offerors. D&A: D&_A offered price is an average of $ igher than the three low offerors. Although realistic, D&A~s high price borders on reasonableness when compared to the average price of its closest competitors. SECTION V. TRADEOFF ANALYSIS This procurement utilizes the best value evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation. In accordance with the RFP, nonprice factors (Technical and Past Performance), when combined, were more important than Price. Of the non-price factors, Technical is more important than Past Performance. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Of the five final offerors, Rowe proposes the lowest offer at $ for labor and $ other indirect cost. As noted earlier, however, the Rowe's Technical Proposal, page 00014 provides:

573
Nonetheless, there is no explanation of

Also, there is no explanation of how Rowe wil

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104

14

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

As this is a firm-fixed-price contract, the Government places value on the reduction in risk provided by offers NOSLOT's price was~the second lowest. At $ t is higher than Rowe's proposed price of $ However, NOSLOT's proposals does include a NOSLOT's pricing scheme is considered a value to the Government. In addition to NOSLOT's excellent pricing scheme, I found that NOSLOT is the 0nly company to offer

Combined with the other previously listed merits of NOSLOT's Technical proposal, NOSLOT's offer provides advantages that are worthwhile to the Government. I find these benefits to be of value to the Government and that the benefits offered by NOSLOT outweights the small price premium over the lowest priced offeror, Rowe. RISK ASSESSMENT: The Government does not expect that there will be any risk because NOSLOT has already provided excellent services to many other Government Agencies, including DIA, in the past and its price proposal is both reasonable and realistic in including an annual wage increase. This significantly reduces the future possibility of losing its emp!oyees or forcing the Government to later renegotiate the contract in order to maintain continuity of uninterrupted services. SECTION VI. SOURCE SELECTION DECISION. In accordance with the Request for Proposal (RFP) :

574
SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104 15

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 5 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

All factors considered, award will be made to the offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the Best Value to the Government. The RFP includes a notice that the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest offeror and that an award may be made without discussions or negotiations with offerors. Accordingly, offerors were instructed to submit proposals based on the most favorable terms they could provide. I have conducted a price-technical tradeoff analysis and I find NOSLOT's small price premium over Rowe's price to be worthwhile because of all the advantages discussed and because NOSLOT's superior pricing scheme in find that these benefits to the Government outweigh the small cost savings associated with Rowe's slightly lower price. Accordingly, I find NOSLOT's offered price of $ be fair and reasonable and provides a better value than Rowe's proposal. Based on the above analysis, I have determined that award will be made to the best value offeror, NOSLOT. SECTION VII. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY & COMPLIANCES

In accordance with FAR 9.104-1 General Standards, NOSLOT is determined to be responsible, and to: Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to attain them; (b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into c~nsideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments; Have a satisfactory performance record; (c) (d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; (e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills; (f) Have the necessary manpower; (g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and reguIations. In making this determination of responsibility, I have reviewed NOSLOT's Dun and Bradstreet report, as well as its past performance questionnaires. A review of the Government's Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) also indicates that NOSLOT is neither suspended norbarred from contracting with the federa! government. (a)

575
SOURCE SELECTION ~IFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104 16

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 30

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SECTION VIII.

CONCLUSION NOSLOT's proposal represents the and therefore an award is made to is considered fair, reasonable and competition.

Based on the above analysis, best value to the Government NOSLOT. The proposed pricing realistic, based on adequate

DATE:
~.LECTION AUTHORITY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION -- SEE FAR 3.104

17

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisidoa Executive Building 6000, Boiling AFB Washington, D.C. 2034o-5 lOO

2,0o6
U-2053/A~2.A

MEMORANDUM FOR MA.I Peter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agc0cy, Contract Appe~s Division, Team I, ATTN: IALS-CAI, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203- i 837

Subject: B-296741.10; Protest of Olympus Building Services, Inc.
~ntracdng O~cer'~ NQtico pf Corrective Action¯

¯ RFP HHM402-O5-R-O017 (the "Solicitation") forthe ~o~urement of janitorial and custodial services for the Defense InteLligence Analysis Centex (DIAC) and its new expansion btzilding was issued on 14 April 2005. The Solicitation closed~on 13 May 2005. Nine offers

were received in re~onse to the Solicitation. Award was mad~ to The Ravens Group, LLC. on 17 Jmte 2005. On 12 ffuly 2005 and 1.9 ~Iuly 2005, two separam protests were filed with the GAO 03-296741.2 and B~296914). The Agency not~ed GAO that it intended to lake corrective action on 3 August 2005. Consistent with the notice to GAO, the Agency re.-evalaatext the proposals, .conducted discussions and allowed off, ors the opp~ortunity to submit final proposal revisions. From the re.-evaluation, a new award was made to Rowe Contracting Service, Inc. on 22 March 2006. On 29 March 2006, GAO notified the Agency that Ravens Group had filed a protest. The Agency notified GAO on April 3, 2006 thttt it intended to conduct anew source selection and issue a new source selection decision. On Sep .tm'nber 13, 2006, consistent with its notice to GAO, the Agency announced award Would be madem NOSLOT pursuant to the new source selection conducted by a new so~ce selection authority. After receiving a requested debriefing, OlYmpus filed the present protest before GAO on October 13, 2006. The Government has determined that the awardee,N(5 .SLOT. does not currently possess the Top Stxa'et (TS/$C1) security clearance required by paragraph 24 (Clause 52,999.2,03 ld) of the. Solicitation and Amendment 0002. B.ecause NOSLOT is txesendy indi .g~ble-for award, the Agency has decidedto take the re/lowing corrective action. "t2te Agency inmnds to terminate ~e contract with NOSLOT for.convenience and conduct a new source selection based on the current proposals. The Agency will not be onduoting a new technical evaluation of proposals or accepting revised proposals from any offerors. The new source selection will be based on the offerors' previously submitted propdsals~ Once a new source selection is completed, a new Source Selection Decision widl be issued, and the appropriat~ offeror will be awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required.

577
TOTAL P,O02

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 30

.t=,~o= d~u~.., cn 13 Msy.2£X~, N'm~ offers ¯ a~ w-~ mad~ to'ft~ ]~ve~ ~,/..L~, on.

TOTAL P,O04

578

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 9 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTONg D.C-~ 203d0-

U-2053/AF.-2A

May15,2006

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, HQ, U,S. Army Legal Servic~ Agency, Contract AFpeals Division, Team I, ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Smart' Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Vixg~a 22203~ I837
Subject: B~296741.5; Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc.

Con tracting Officer'._S Statement In response to GAO's request for clarification of the Contracting officer's Notice of Corrective Action, dated April 3, 2006, the following is provided.. As the April 3, 2006 Notice of Corr~tive Action states, The Agency intend~ to conduct a new source selecdonand.a new Source Selection DeCision will be issued. If a~r the new source s~leetion is conducted arm a contractor other, than Rowe is deemed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be .terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required. The Agency simply intends to conduct a etew source selection. The Agency will not be conducting a new technical evaluation of proposals or accepting revised proposals from any offerors2 The new source selection will be based on the offerors' previously submitted ¯ proposals,, which does not include a reviewof any Joint Personnel Adjudication SyStem " ("YPAS") files~ The JPAS is a database managed by the DoD Agency Central Adjudication Facilities artd is used to confirm the clearance v~Lid2ty of contractor personnel. The JPAS is a contract administration tool that is not used during the procurement process.

Contract~gOfficer

579
Exhibit 12
TOTAL P. 002

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 10 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisition Executive Building 6000, Bollmg AFI3 Washington, D.C. 20340-5100 April 3, 2006 U-2053/AE-2A MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, Contract Appeals Division, Team [, ATTN: JAIlS-CA[, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203- 1837

Subject: B-296741.3; Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Contracting Officer's Notice of Corrective Action RFP HHM402-05-R-00 l 7 (the "Solicitation") for the procurement of janitorial and custodial services for the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) and its new expansion ' building was issued on 14 April 2005. The Solicitation closed on 13 May 2005. Nine offers were received in response to the Solicitation. Award was made to The Ravens Group, LLC, on 17 June 2005. On 12 July 2005 and 19 July 2005, two separate protests were filed with the GAO (B-296741.2 and B-296914). The Agency notified GAO that it intended to take corrective action on 3 August 2005. Consistent with the notice to GAO, the Agency re-evaluated the proposals, conducted discussions and allowed offerors the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions. From the re-evaluation, a new award was made to Rowe Contracting Service, Inc. on 22 March 2006. On 29 March 2006, GAO notified the Agency that Ravens Group had filed a protest. On 31 March 2006, Rowe was notified of the protest and the required stay of per fma-nance. The Government has reviewed the allegations contained in the protest filed by Ravens Group. Although the protest is not clearly meritorious, the Agency has decided to take the following corrective action. The Agency intends to conduct a new source selection and a new Source Selection Decision will be issued. [f after the new source selection is conducted and a contractor other than Rowe is deemed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required.

GUY A. TORRES Contracting Officer

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 11 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisition Executive Building 6000, Boiling AFB Washington, D.C. 20340-5100

August l, 2005
U-2053/AE-2A

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, Contract Appeals Division, Team I, ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203- 1837

Subject: B-296741.2; Protest of NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. " Contracting Officer's Notice of Corrective Action RFP HHM402-05-R-0017 (the "Solicitation") for the procurement o fj anitorial and custodial services for the Defense Intelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) and its new expansion building was issued on 14 April 2005. The Solicitation closed on 13 May 2005. Nine offers were received in response to the Solicitation. Award was made to The Ravens Group, [.I_.C, on 17 June 2005. NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. was debriefed on 8 July 2005, On 12 July 2005, NOLSOT filed a protest of the award with the Govermnent Accountability Office (GAO) (B-296741.2). Due to the essential nature of the requirements, the D[A HCA, on 13 July 2005, authorized continued performance of the contract pending the outcome of the protest. The Govemment has reviewed the allegations contained in the protest filed by NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. Although the protest is not clearly meritorious, the Agency has decided to take the following corrective action. The Agency intends to re-evaluate the nine proposals that were received at the close of the original submission deadline on May 13, 2005. Once the proposals have been re-evaluated, award may be made without discussions. [f the Agency determines that discussions are warranted, a competitive range will be established and.. discussions will be conducted with all offerors within the range. Upon comple__tj0.9 of discussions, o ffer0i-s ~i-t-liii~he competitive range will be provided the opportunity to submit final revised proposals.

In light of the serious detrimental impact that would result from work Stoppage under the present awarded contract, current janitorial and custodial services will continue unimpeded. If after the evaluation, another contractor is deemed the appropriate awardee, the contract with The Ravens Group, LLC, will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required. An amendment to the Solicitation will be issued implementing the corrective action at the close of the protest.

GUY A. TORRES Contracting O fficer

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 12 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisition Executive Building 6000, Boiling AFB Washington, D.C. 20340-5100 August 2, 2005
U-2053/AE-2A

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, Contract Appeals Division, Team I, ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1837

Subject: B-296914; Protest of O15nnpus Building Services, hac.

Contracting Officer's Notice of Corrective Action
RFP HHM402-05-R-0017 (the "Solicitation") for the procurement of janitorial and custodial services for the Defense laatelligence Analysis Center (DIAC) and its new expansion building was issued on 14 April 2005. The Solicitation closed on 13 May 2005. Nine offers were received in response to the Solicitation. Award was made to The Ravens Group, LLC, on 17 June 2005. Ol3qnpus Building Services, Inc. was debriefed on 12 July 2005. On 19 July 2005, Olympus filed a protest of the award with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (B-296914).

The Government has reviewed the allegations contained in the protest filed by Olympus Building Services, Inc. Although the protest is not clearly meritorious, the Agency has decided to take the following corrective action. The Agency intends to re-evaluate the nine proposals that were received at the close of the original submission deadline on May 13, 2005. Once the proposals have been re-evaluated, award may be made without discussions. If the Agency determines that discussions are warranted, a competitive range will be established and discussions will be conducted with all offerors within the range. Upon completion of discussions, offerors within the competitive range will be provided the opportunity to submit final revised proposals. In light of the serious detrimental impact that would result from work stoppage under the present awarded contract, current janitorial and custodial services will continue unimpeded. If after the evaluation, another contractor is deemed the appropriate awardee, the contract with The Ravens Group, LLC, will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required. An amendment to the Solicitation will be issued implementing the corrective action at the close of the protest.

Contracting Officer

582

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 13 of 30

MEMORANDUM FOR TfIE RECORD
FROM: DIAC Custodial Service Contract Technical Evaluation Panel SUBJECT: Vendors Exclusion from the DIAC Custodial Service Contract Competitive Range

The Technical Evaluation Panel made the decision to exclude the two ), from the DIAC Custodial Service Contract competitive range after careful consideration. We determined their proposals are not in the competitive range. Our decision is based on the technical and past performance evaluation factors established in the solicitation. proposal was excluded from further consideration for the following reasons: proposal did not clearly present:

(1) A detailed and clear understanding of the Statement of Objectives, including personnel, materials, facilities, and organizational processes. (2) Evidence of sufficient planning to show that work will be accomplished as required and on schedule, using all available resources. (3) A specific explanation of how the contractor intends to service office areas, escalators, high traffic areas, stairwells, and common areas. To include how of, en these areas will be cleaned and how these areas will be monitored to keep them clean. (4) A plan that describes the transition to the new building (DIAC Expansion). (5) An accePtable schedule that includes all areas in the scope of work. (6) Indication that 20% cleared personnel are immediately available to start and maintain quality custodial services. (7) A detailed plan addressing the provision of services to the new building (DIAC Expansion). (8) A start-up plan addressing how employees will be hired and for ensuring a proper amount of cleated people (including escorts) providing custodial services to both the DIAC and the DIAC Expansion. (9) A clear indication that you have performed adequate planning to accomplish the custodial tasks as defined in the Statement of Objectives. (a) Provide a complete plan to accomplish each requirement. The plan should address how custodial servicing of high traffic areas, classrooms, garage and loading dock areas will be accomplished. (b) Provide a detailed, service schedule to include periodic cleaning of windows, carpet shampoo, floor maintenance, etc. (10) A plan demonstrating that appropriate personnel and equipment will be ' positioned efficiently-to can-y out the requirements from the start date of the contract .and how an inventory of supplies, tools, and equipment will be maintained. (11) A plan demonstrating you can satisfy all of the Statement of Objectives level "6" security requirements for personnel. (12) A plan indicating response times to special requests. (13) A plan addressing thecleaning of high visibility areas.

583

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 14 of 30

(14) A schedule of how often the garage and dock areas will becleaned and how it will be monitored.. (15) A detailed plan addressing how you will be prepared to handle requirements of the conference rooms and conference center in the new building (DIAC Expansion). (16) A security awareness plan. (17) A staffing plan addressing how you will recruit, (re)train, and retain employees.

Overall Technical Proposal was A proposal revision will not be considered. proposal was excluded from further consideration for the following reasons: proposal did not clearly present:

(1) A detailed and clear understanding of the Statement of Objectives, including personnel, materials, facilities, and organizational processes (example: the proposal Stated in the Quality Control section, page 2, third bullet, it would clean the "courthouse", Quality Control section, page 3, paragraph 5.1.1, would be the pest contractor, snow contractor ..., Quality control section, page 6, paragraph 5.1.3, "...we guarantee the effectiveness of the water treatment program we will oversee", Staffing section, page 3, Support Staff, paragraph 3 "... MBJ employees working in the Child Development Center ...", and Phase-In section, page 3, week 3, "... for the review of State of Nevada"). (2) Evidence of sufficient planning to show that work will be accomplished as required and on schedule, using all available resources. (3) A specific explanation of how the Contractor intends to service office areas, escalators, high traffic areas, stairwells, and common areas. To include how often these areas will be cleaned and how these areas will be monitored to keep them clean. (4) A plan that describes the transition to the new building (DIAC Expansion). It only mentions it will staff and address at a later date with a revised plan. (5) A plan addressing requirements and goals set forth in the Statement of Objectives. ' (6) A plan paying special/particular attention to high visibility areas. (7) A schedule of how often the garage and loading dock areas will be cleaned. (8) An indication in detail that the contractor will be prepared to handle ' requirement of the conference rooms and conference center in the DIAC Expansion. (9) A schedule that includes all areas in the scope of work. (10) An indication that 20% cleared personnel are inunediately available (need to be transferred from other sites out west) to start and maintain quality custodial services and does not address how services to the DIAC Expansion wi!l be provided. (11) A detailed starting plan addressing how employees will be hired and for ensuring a proper amount of cleared people for both sites. (12) An indication of how escorts will be provided at contract start. (13) A clear indication that you have performed adequate planning to accomplish the custodial tasks as defined in the Statement of Objectives.

584

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 15 of 30

(14) A service schedule for or address how high traffic areas, classrooms, garage, and loading dock areas will be cleaned. (15) A service schedule indicating how periodic cleaning of windows, carpets shampoo, etc. will be accomplished. (16) A service schedule addressing floor maintenance. (17) A demonstration that appropriate personnel and equipment will be positioned efficiently to carry out the reqnirements from the stm~ date of the contract. (18) An indication how and inventory of supplies, tools, and equipment will be maintained. (19) A realistic schedule (the schedule does not seem realistic because it assumes a cleared workforce in 180 days without providing a detailed recruitment plan. (20) Evidence that cleaning supplies and equipment meet "green clean" standards. (21) An indication how "'green clean" standards will be met and maintained. (22) A detailed recruitment and retention plan addressing "6" level personnel. (23) A security awareness plan which is appropriate for the DIA. (24) A detailed and specific staffing plan addressing retention and training of employees, Overall Technical Proposal was A proposal revision will not be considered. The following offerors have submitted proposals that remain eligible for award and therefore comprise the competitive range with which the Agency will conduct discussions: D&A Building Services Engineering Maintenance Concepts (EMC) Laro Service System, Inc. NOSLOT Olympus Rowe Contracting Services The Ravens Group Prepared By: Peter N. Start, Chairman, Teclmical Evaluation Panel

585

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 16 of 30

VIRGINIA CONTRACTING ACTIVITY 200 MACDILL BLVD., BLDG 6000 BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100

U-0934/AE-2A

SEP 1 3 2006

Mr. Anthony C. Hipple, President Olympus Building Services, Inc. 244 S. Main Street New Hope, PA 18938 Dear Mr. Hipple: Your firm responded to this Agency's Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Janitorial/Custodial Services for the Defense Intelligence Ag?ncy,Bolling AFB, Wastiingt0n, DC. The RFP was issued to twenty (20) contractors and only nine (9) proposals were received. A competitive range was established and, a result, there were five (5)offerors that qualified within the Competitive range. Upon careful reconsideration by the new Source Selection Authority, the following offeror's proposal was selected as being the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered:
NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. 303 Post Office Road, Suite B-3 Waldorf, MD 20602

Total price including the base period and all options --- $19,401,698.00 If you desire a debriefing, please submit your request via fax to Juanita Jones at (202) 231-283 ! within three (3)calendar days from receipt of this letter. The Government will provide a written debriefing. Your proposal indicated that considerable effort was involved in its preparation and DIA appreciates your effort. Sincerely,

ON Officer

586

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 17 of 30

OCT I 1 2GG5

587

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 18 of 30

2

588

TOTAL P, 022

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 19 of 30

TECHNICALPROPOSAL FOR CUSTODIAL SERVICES

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS CENTER

(o~sc)
AT BOLLING AFB WASHINGTON DC FOR .SOLICITATION NUMBER HI~4402-05-R-0017 SUBMITTED 13 MAY 2005

BY
ROWE CONTRACTING SERVICE, INC. MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA 70471

.THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES DATA THAT SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED OUTSIDE THE GOVER}0VIENT AND SHALL NOT BE DIYPLICATED~ USED OR DISCLOSED-IN WHOLE OR IN PART-FOR ANY 'PURPOSE ~ THAN TO EVALUATE THIS PROPOSAL. IFHOWEVER, A CONTRACT IS AWARDED TO THIS OFEROR AS. A RESULT OFIOR INCON}~CTION WITHTHE SOBMISSION OF THIS DATA, THE. GO~ SHALL HAVE .THE RIGItT TO DUPLICATE, .USE, ORDISCLOSE THE.DATA TO THE

EX'mm- PROV~ED n~ THE e, EStmT~G CONTRACT. THIS RESTP,~CTION DOES UOT LIM1T THE
GOVERNMENT'S RIGttT TO USE THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DATA-IF IT IS OBTAINED. FROM ANOTHER SOO-RCE WlTHOOT RESTRICTION. THE DATA SUBJECT TO THIS RESTRICHON ~ CONTAINED IN ALL SHEETS FOR SOLICITATION NUMBER ~Ma02*05~R-O0tT. A~ ' ITS AMENDMENTS..Tim REMAINDER OF THIS FAR PROVISIOI'~ IS INCORPORATED BY ~NCE

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOT TO BE. DISCLOSED
589

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 20 of 30

This proposal is in general form and order corresponding to lnstructions~to Offerors (Addendum 52o212-1), Special Instructions, Evaluation Critcria, respectively pages 37 thru 43. There may be some cross-indexing of references in complying.
This proposal is tabbed for the convenience of the government and the information offered has been confined to essential matters~ All other clauses rand actions are hereby acknowledged.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAB 1

TAB 3

TAB 4 TAB 5 TAB 6.
DLSCLOSI.IP, E OF DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS SUBJECT TOTHE P, ESTRICTIONS ON THE WILE PAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL

590

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 21 of 30

591

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 22 of 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DISCLOSURE OF DATA CONTAINED ON THIS. SHEET IS SL~BJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE OF TI~S PROPOSAL.

592

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 23 of 30

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 24 of 30

TECItNICAL CAPABILITIES

is I's he
Therefore, rm all g, high uffers; nes, oved eas. task,

~s s I ~e to er

594
DISCLOSUILE OF DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS SUBJECT TO TIlE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 25 of 30

3) m

on et e. a e f hese of g ng re

f t.

595

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 26 of 30

596

0900.4

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 27 of 30

Scott Eugene Rowe
551 Kimbedy Ann Mandevflle, La. 70471 800 521 4993 (W) 985 845 1022 (H)

Summary of qualifications
Twenty-five (25) years of operation and management experience in operating government housekeeping and facility maintenance contracts. Posses a TS/SCI and above clearance.
1988 - Present ROWE contracting Service, Inc. CoWngton, LA Owner/President of Rowe Contracting Sexvice, lnc_

Work experience
!,984 -198;8
ROWE Contracting Service, Inc. New Orleans, LA Vice President/President of Rowe Contracting Service, Inc. for ",all operations. ROWE Contracting Service, Inc. New Or/eang LA. Project Manager, Field Station Augsburg, West Germany. Responsible for all operations of contract (building maintenance, janitorial services, grounds maintenance, classified document destruction and security escort services). Also Field Technical Rep. for all locations in Europe and England, including lo<:ations in Munich, Augsburg, Bad Aibling, Stultgart, ~d West Berlin, German~ Menwith Hill and Chicksands, England. Total number of employees responsible for varied between one hundred and twenty-five (125) and two hundred (200).

1983:1984

1982-1983

ROWE Contracting See'vice, Inc. New-Orleat~,. L~ Project Manager, Custodial Contract, Missile Intelligence Agency Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Responsible for all operations of ~ontract. Also FI'R for all operations in Europe and England_

Security clearance
Possesses a top secret security Clearance granted by rite Defense Investigation Service with SCI

Education
1985-1987

University of New Orleans
Hen, Orleans, Completed several courses toward degree-in economics.

597

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 28 of 30

Universi~/of Alabama at Huntsville Huntsville, AL. Completed several classes toward degree in economics. Louisiana Slate University Baton Rouge, LA ¯ Compl~d .~.~ra/prerequisite cours~ toward degree in economics.

1979 - 198l

Professional memberships
Member of Building.Service Contrac~ Association Inc. Member of National Rifle Associalion Associate Member of the Nortldake Republicans.

Community activities
Attend Wtrst Baptist Church in Covington, LA. ¯ Member of the K_rewe of Endymion.

Personal
Married, Three (3) children

598

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 29 of 30

RESUME FOR ROBERT DUNCAN Mr. Duncan has 15 years experience as an RCSI Management Representative, including those that require a TS/SCI Security Clearance. ring

t ntory ecret

DISCLOSORE OF DATA/CONTAINED ON THIS SI-IF~T IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ONTHE TITLE PAGE OF THIS PROPOSAL.

599

00007

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-23

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 30 of 30

DISCLOSURE OF DATA CONTAINED ON THIS SHEET IS SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE TITLE PAGE .OF THIS PROPOSAL.

~00008
600