Professional Landscape Management Services, Inc., B-286612, December 22, 2000

B-286612 Dec 22, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Award decision was unobjectionable where contemporaneous record shows that all offerors' technical proposals were of equal merit. PLMS asserts that the evaluation was inconsistent with the RFP and unreasonable. That discussions were inadequate. Offers were to be evaluated on the basis of two equally weighted factors: technical. Offerors were required to submit five references for similar projects performed by the offeror during the past 7 years. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous. The responses from the references were all positive and similar in nature and. Both proposals were evaluated as acceptable. PLMS's price was lowest overall and approximatley $900 below ERG's. View Decision Matter of: Professional Landscape Management Services, Inc. File: B-286612 Date: December 22, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Professional Landscape Management Services, Inc. (PLMS) protests the award of a contract to Environmental Resources Group, Inc. (ERG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS11P00ZCD0155, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service, for landscape maintenance services. PLMS asserts that the evaluation was inconsistent with the RFP and unreasonable, and that discussions were inadequate. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services necessary for complete landscape maintenance services, including snow and ice removal, around various buildings at two Maryland sites, the Suitland Federal Center and Bowie Computer Facility. /1/ Offerors submitted fixed monthly pricing for each service for a performance period of a base year, with 4 option years. Offers were to be evaluated on the basis of two equally weighted factors: technical, consisting of experience and past performance on similar projects, and price. With regard to the technical factor, offerors were required to submit five references for similar projects performed by the offeror during the past 7 years. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous, i.e., the best value to the government, considering the technical and price factors. Four offerors, including PLMS and ERG, submitted proposals by the September 15, 2000 closing time. In evaluating these proposals, the evaluators contacted the references submitted by each offeror to obtain answers to seven questions. /2/ The evaluators successfully contacted five of ERG's references and four of PLMS's. The responses from the references were all positive and similar in nature and, in accordance with the source selection plan--which provided for ratings of either acceptable or unacceptable--both proposals were evaluated as acceptable. PLMS's price was lowest overall and approximatley $900 below ERG's. Based on this initial evaluation, the agency determined to conduct discussions with all offerors. In discussions with PLMS, the agency advised the firm that all references were acceptable and all reviews received were "good," but because only three references were for general landscape services, it asked PLMS to submit two additional references related to landscaping. The agency also noted that PLMS's pricing was low in comparison to other offers received and advised PLMS to review its pricing to ensure that everything was included. The agency similarly advised ERG that its price was low compared to other offers received and the government estimate, and that it should review its proposal to ensure that everything was included. In its revised proposal, PLMS included two additional references and raised its overall prices for each year to a total of $365,476. The agency was unable to contact either of the references, and thus decided to rely upon PLMS's initial evaluation under the technical factor. ERG increased its annual prices to a total of $348,218 per year, approximately $17,000 below PLMS's price. In their final report, the evaluators recommended award to ERG based on the fact that both PLMS's and ERG's proposals were acceptable and the fact that ERG's price was lower. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Final Evaluation Report. Further, citing ERG's 6.5 years of experience in landscape maintenance at the Suitland Federal Center, its favorable reference rating for that work, and ERG's "considerable knowledge of the requirements of this contract," the contracting officer determined that ERG's price was fair and reasonable and that award to ERG was in the best interests of the government. AR, Tab 13, Final Price Analysis. PLMS maintains that the agency improperly changed the award basis from best value to low price/technically acceptable, resulting in price being the sole evaluation factor.