Bella Vista Landscaping, Inc., B-291310, December 16, 2002

B-291310 Dec 16, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced proposal in commercial services procurement for grounds maintenance services is denied where record shows evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with evaluation scheme in which price and performance risk were considered approximately equal in importance. Agency was neither required to give additional evaluation credit to protester for its performance as incumbent. Nor to award on the basis of protester's superior performance risk rating where agency reasonably determined payment of associated cost premium was not warranted in light of awardee's lower proposed price and favorable performance risk rating. Contends that the source selection was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria. View Decision Bella Vista Landscaping, Inc., B-291310, December 16, 2002 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Bella Vista Landscaping, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Maintenance Engineers, Inc. (MEI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F05611-010-R-0325, issued as a small business set-aside by the Department of the Air Force for grounds maintenance and landscaping services at the United States Air Force Academy. Bella Vista, the incumbent grounds maintenance contractor at the Academy, contends that the source selection was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP's evaluation criteria. Bella Vista contends that, in light of its successful performance of grounds maintenance services at the Academy, its proposal, with a superior performance risk rating and slightly higher price than the awardee's, should have been found to have offered the best value to the agency. We deny the protest. The RFP, which contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods, was issued as a commercial services procurement. The streamlined evaluation scheme set forth in the RFP provided two evaluation factors for award, past performance and price; award was to be made to the offeror determined to have submitted the most advantageous proposal considering the two approximately equal factors. The RFP recognized the agency's right to award to a higher-priced offeror with a better performance risk rating if a performance risk/price tradeoff supported the award; in this regard, price and performance risk would be "traded off, one against the other" to determine which proposal offered the best value to the agency. RFP amend. 1 at 5-6. The RFP provided that the best value assessment was to be based upon "the price proposed and the performance risk rating assigned." Id. In assigning a performance risk rating, evaluators were to consider the quality and extent, including complexity, of the offeror's relevant past performance. The RFP did not require offerors to demonstrate successful performance of each individual service called for under the RFP or to show successful performance of the identical services required at the Academy in order to be rated highly for past performance. The type of relevant experience that could demonstrate an offeror's ability to successfully perform the required services was broadly defined in the RFP, as follows: Relevant experience includes, but is not limited to, grounds maintenance and landscaping services, including care of approximately 2,800 acres of improved & semi-improved grounds, 472,000 linear feet of sidewalks, curbs and driveways, 35,700 trees and shrubs, and 278 rock beds. Similar scope will reflect a similar magnitude of approximately $1 million per year. Id. at 6 (emphasis added). The RFP explained that "the purpose of the evaluation is to make an assessment of the government's confidence in the offeror's ability to perform the contract, that is, to assess the level of risk the Government will incur if an offeror is awarded the contract." Id. at 6-7. The following six ratings were available under the RFP's evaluation scheme to identify the level of perceived risk in each offeror's performance: exceptional/high confidence ("essentially no doubt" exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort); very good/significant confidence ("little doubt exists" that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort); satisfactory/confidence ("some doubt exists" that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort); neutral/unknown confidence (where no performance record was identified, performance risk was to be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably); marginal/little confidence ("substantial doubt exists" that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort); and unsatisfactory/no confidence ("extreme doubt exists" that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort). Id. at 7. The performance risk assessment was to be a subjective, unbiased judgment about the quality of an offeror's past performance.