Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, March 2, 1999

Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, March 2, 1999 TITLE: Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, March 2, 1999 BNUMBER: B-281579; B-281579.2 DATE: March 2, 1999 ********************************************************************** Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc., B-281579; B-281579.2, March 2, 1999 Decision Matter of: Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc. File: B-281579; B-281579.2 Date: March 2, 1999 Kenneth Bruntel, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Frank K. Peterson, Esq. and Frank K. Peterson, Holland & Knight LLP, an intervenor. Vickie O. O'Keefe, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the awardee's prices were unbalanced is denied where the record shows that the differences between the awardee's and protester's prices were not significant, and neither offeror's prices appear significantly understated or overstated. 2. Protest that the contracting agency improperly evaluated the protester's and awardee's technical proposals submitted in response to a solicitation for grounds maintenance services is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable in that the evaluators recognized the protester's proposal's technical superiority. 3. Protest of the agency's determination that the technical superiority of the protester's proposal was outweighed by the price advantage of the awardee's is denied where the record shows that the trade-off decision was reasonably based. DECISION Joppa Maintenance Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to D.M. Potts Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68950-97-R-0094, issued by the Department of the Navy for grounds maintenance services at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed price, indefinite-quantity contract for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. The contractor will be required to furnish all management, supervision, personnel, transportation, equipment, labor, tools, supplies, and quality control to perform ground maintenance services at the training center. RFP amend. 1, sect. C.1. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government, with technical merit and price being equal in importance. RFP sect. M.1. With regard to technical merit, the RFP listed three equally important evaluation factors: (1) methods, procedures, and resources; (2) relevant experience; and (3) past performance. Id. at sect. M.2.A. The RFP provided detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals and included, among other things, a price schedule for offerors to complete. This schedule contained a definite-quantity section (referred to in the record as the "fixed-price work") and an "indefinite quantity work" section for each contract year. RFP sect. B. In essence, the successful contractor will be required to perform the grounds maintenance work listed in the definite-quantity section of the schedule (e.g., herbicide treatment and weed control), with the work in the indefinite-quantity section (e.g., stump removal) being performed only if ordered by the agency. The agency received proposals from Joppa (the incumbent contractor), Potts, and another offeror by the RFP's closing date. The proposals were evaluated, and the proposal of the third offeror was eliminated from the competitive range. Written questions were provided to Joppa and Potts, and best and final offers (BAFO) were requested and received by the agency. Joppa's BAFO was rated as acceptable under the methods, procedures, and resources evaluation factor, highly satisfactory under the relevant experience and past performance factors, and highly satisfactory overall, with a total price for the definite-quantity and indefinite-quantity work for the base plus option years of $6,654,316. [1] Agency Report, Tab 11, Supplemental Price Evaluation Board Report, Oct. 26, 1998; Tab 13A, Technical Evaluation Team Report, Oct. 26, 1998. Potts's BAFO was rated as acceptable under each of the evaluation factors, and acceptable overall, with a total price for the definite-quantity and indefinite-quantity work for the base plus option years of $6,253,995. Id. The source selection board (SSB) determined that Joppa's proposal's higher technical rating did not offset its 6-percent price disadvantage, and concluded that Potts's proposal represented the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 16A, SSB Report. The agency awarded the contract to Potts and, after requesting and receiving a debriefing, Joppa filed this protest. Joppa first argues that Potts's proposal should have been rejected by the agency as technically unacceptable.