Nick Chorak Mowing, B-280011.2, October 1, 1998

B-280011.2 Oct 01, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contracting agency's decision to modify statement of work after receipt of initial quotations to reflect its actual needs is unobjectionable where offerors were given an equal opportunity to revise their quotes based on the reduced requirement. The types of groundskeeping activities included in the statement of work (SOW) were lawnmowing and thatch removal. The proposed prices were $23. The agency engaged in discussions during which each firm was notified of specific deficiencies in its work plan and was provided an opportunity to provide a compliant revised work plan. Your quote is more than what we had in mind for this effort. Argues that "the fact that Christopher was given the opportunity to choose what portion of the Solicitation to change . . . coupled with the fact that Christopher was told that his proposal was too high. View Decision Matter of: Nick Chorak Mowing File: B-280011.2 Date: October 1, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Nick Chorak Mowing protests the issuance of a purchase order to Bill Christopher Enterprises under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RT-98-00295, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for certain full-service landscape maintenance and management services. Chorak complains that the agency exhibited bias and conducted a "price auction." /1/ We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued under simplified acquisition procedures on March 26, 1998, sought quotes to provide full-service landscape maintenance and management at two locations of the National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory complex in Corvallis, Oregon. The types of groundskeeping activities included in the statement of work (SOW) were lawnmowing and thatch removal; tree and shrub pruning; debris removal; application of bark dust in landscaped areas; weed and insect pest control in lawn and landscaped areas; application of fertilizers and pesticides by a state of Oregon licensed pesticide applicator; and parking lot and sidewalk sweeping. RFQ SOW at 4. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a 1-year, fixed-price purchase order to the vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government, and indicated that the quotations would be evaluated on the basis of past performance, adequacy and completeness of proposed work plan, and price. Id. at 9. The EPA received quotations from Nick Chorak Mowing and Bill Christopher Enterprises in response to the RFQ. The proposed prices were $23,988 and $31,069.08, respectively. The project officer evaluated each vendor's work plan, past performance references, and price. The agency engaged in discussions during which each firm was notified of specific deficiencies in its work plan and was provided an opportunity to provide a compliant revised work plan. During discussions, the contracting officer sent a facsimile to Christopher which identified deficiencies in its quote and concluded with the following postscript: "P.S. Your quote is more than what we had in mind for this effort. I'd like to discuss your offer." Memorandum from the Contracting Officer to Bill Christopher Enterprises 2 (Apr. 23, 1998). Christopher responded to the identified deficiencies that same day by facsimile. In that response Christopher reduced its original quote by $1,000, offering a revised quote of $30,069.12, and stated that it could provide an additional unspecified price reduction if the agency would reduce the fertilizer requirements to twice per year, instead of three times per year, and allow lawn clippings to be left on the lawn rather than bagged. Letter from Bill Christopher Enterprises to the Contracting Officer (Apr. 23, 1998). On April 23, the contracting officer notified Chorak and Christopher by facsimile that the agency had reduced the number of required fertilizer applications from three to two per year, and invited each firm to submit a revised quotation in response to the reduced requirements. Christopher submitted a very slightly reduced quote of $29,916 in response, which remained substantially higher than Chorak's quote of $23,988. /2/ The contracting officer concluded after reviewing Chorak's past performance references that there would be "significant risks" that Chorak's performance would be unsatisfactory. Contracting Officer Basis for "Best Value" Award Memorandum at 2. The agency also determined that three deficiencies remained in Chorak's revised work plan. Christopher received an overall past performance rating of "acceptable." The agency also determined that Christopher's revised work plan conformed to the SOW requirements. Accordingly, the contracting officer determined that Christopher's higher quote represented the best value to the government and issued a purchase order to Christopher on April 30.