Family Entertainment Services, Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, B-291997.4, June 10, 2004

B-291997.4 Jun 10, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Family Entertainment Services, Inc., d/b/a IMC (IMC) protests the award of a contract to Terry Land Development (TLD) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK09-03-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds maintenance services for the Fort Campbell, Kentucky military reservation. IMC challenges the agency's evaluation of TLD's past performance and key personnel. We deny the protest. View Decision B-291997.4, Family Entertainment Services, Inc., d/b/a/ IMC, June 10, 2004 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: Family Entertainment Services, Inc., d/b/a/ IMC File: B-291997.4 Date: June 10, 2004 Timothy E. Heffernan, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, for the protester. Maj. Robert B. Neill, Department of the Army, for the agency. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance and key personnel is reasonable, where evaluation is consistent with the solicitation's evaluation criteria and is supported by the record. DECISION Family Entertainment Services, Inc., d/b/a IMC (IMC) protests the award of a contract to Terry Land Development (TLD) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK09-03-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds maintenance services for the Fort Campbell, Kentucky military reservation. IMC challenges the agency's evaluation of TLD's past performance and key personnel. We deny the protest. The RFP, set aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business concerns, contemplated the use of commercial item procedures to award a fixed-price contract for grounds maintenance services. RFP at 25, 26, 33. These services included such items as mowing, edging, trimming, removing debris, and repairing damaged areas for 6,999 acres of improved grounds, of which 4,760 acres is grass. RFP at 39. The RFP provided for a 1-year base period with four 1'year options, and five additional 1-year options based on award terms. Within each 1'year period, the RFP contemplated a mowing season of 8 months. RFP at 28, 39. The RFP provided for a best-value award based on quality and price, with quality being –slightly more important than— price. The RFP stated, however, that –[t]he importance of the price in the selection will increase as the quality differences between proposals decreases.— RFP at 88. The RFP stated that the quality factor consisted of two subfactors--past performance and technical/management--with past performance being –slightly more important than— technical/management. The past performance subfactor consisted of four equally weighted sub-subfactors: quality of products/services, scheduling, business relations, and safety/experience modification. The technical/management subfactor consisted of four equally weighted sub-subfactors: technical excellence/experience, management capabilities, key personnel qualifications, and subcontractor data. RFP at 88-89. For the past performance subfactor, the RFP required that each offeror –identify and submit a separate record for all Federal, state and local government and private contracts that are similar in dollar value and complexity to the work required in this solicitation within the past three (3) years.— RFP amend. 1, at 84. For the technical/management subfactor, among other things, contractors were to identify and provide the resumes for key personnel, which the RFP defined as –those Contractor personnel considered to be essential to the performance of the contract (Program Manager and Quality Control Officer),— and letters of intent for proposed subcontractors. The RFP cautioned that the –failure to provide a valid written letter of intent between the prime contractor and the subcontractors and/or provide resumes for key personnel in the proposal may invalidate the experience/credentials and may not be used as part of the evaluation of the proposal.— RFP amend. 1, at 86'87. The Army received 15 proposals in response to the RFP and, after initial evaluation, found 7 (including IMC's and TLD's proposals) to be in the competitive range. The agency rated IMC's and TLD's initial proposals as follows: Past Performance Technical/Management OverallQuality Price IMC Excellent Satisfactory Good $12,852,555.52 TLD Very Good Satisfactory Good $12,494,488.00 AR, Tab 12, Pre-Negotiation Objective Memorandum (POM), at 17. The Army held discussions with each of the offerors in the competitive range concerning deficiencies and weaknesses in their proposals, and invited offerors to submit revised proposals.