Sam Facility Management, Inc., B-292165, July 11, 2003

B-292165 Jul 11, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's proposal was reasonably excluded from the competitive range where the proposal failed to include information requested by the solicitation. Was reasonably evaluated as deficient in certain areas. Was relatively high in price. Were unreasonable. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the "best value" to the government. The technical/management factor was comprised of the following equally weighted subfactors: relevant experience. The technical/management and past performance factors were of "equal importance to each other. [were] of equal importance to Price.". The offerors' technical and cost proposals were forwarded to the cognizant technical evaluation board (TEB) and cost evaluation panel (CEP). /2/ Sam's proposal was evaluated as "unacceptable" under the technical/management factor. View Decision Sam Facility Management, Inc., B-292165, July 11, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Sam Facility Management, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, and subsequent award of a contract to Excell Management Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62477-03-R-0509, issued by the Department of the Navy, for grounds maintenance services at the Naval Academy Complex, Annapolis, Maryland. Sam contends that the agency's evaluation of its and Excell's proposals, and the determination to exclude its proposal from the competitive range, were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued October 25, 2002 as a section 8(a) set-aside, sought proposals for grounds maintenance services, including mowing, plant maintenance, weeding and fertilization, flower bed planting and maintenance, policing of grounds and leaf removal, street sweeping, snow and ice removal, irrigation, and maintenance of athletic fields. /1/ The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price contract including indefinite-quantity work for a base period of 1 year with four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the "best value" to the government. The solicitation set forth three evaluation factors: technical/management, past performance, and price. The technical/management factor was comprised of the following equally weighted subfactors: relevant experience; project staffing; corporate management support; and support for small business, women-owned business and small disadvantaged business program. The technical/management and past performance factors were of "equal importance to each other, and considered together, [were] of equal importance to Price." RFP Sec. M.3. The RFP included detailed instructions regarding the preparation of proposals. The solicitation stated, for example, as follows: Each technical proposal shall be precise, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements. As a minimum, the proposal must contain sufficient detail so that it may be evaluated in accordance with the EVALUATION FACTORS provision, Section M. RFP Sec. L, FAC 5252.215-9300, Content of Proposals. Eight offerors, including Sam and Excell, submitted proposals by the November 29, 2002 closing date. The offerors' technical and cost proposals were forwarded to the cognizant technical evaluation board (TEB) and cost evaluation panel (CEP). /2/ Sam's proposal was evaluated as "unacceptable" under the technical/management factor, "neutral" under the past performance factor, and "unacceptable" overall, at a total evaluated price of $14,448,733 (the second highest received). Sam's proposal was rated "unacceptable" under each of the four subfactors comprising the technical/management factor, with the exception of the support for small business subfactor, under which Sam's proposal was rated "acceptable." Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, TEB Report, at 3, 13-14; CEB Report, at 1. Excell's proposal was evaluated as "marginal" under the technical/management factor, and "good" under the past performance factor, at a total evaluated price of $10,133,663 (the second lowest received). Excell's proposal was rated as "acceptable" under the relevant experience subfactor of the technical/management factor, "marginal" under the project staffing subfactor, "excellent" under the corporate management support subfactor, and "acceptable" under the support for small business subfactor. AR, Tab 5, TEB Report, at 3, 7-9; CEB Report, at 1. The agency included Excell's proposal, as well as the proposal submitted by another offeror (that was evaluated as "marginal" overall under the technical/management factor, "neutral" under the past performance factor, at a total evaluated price of $12,183,045), in the competitive range. Discussions were held with the two competitive range offerors, and final proposal revisions were requested and received.