Matter of: Sam Facility Management, Inc.

B-292237 Jul 22, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals of both the protester and the awardee is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. Sam primarily argues that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals and that a member of the technical evaluation panel is biased against the firm. The government-estimated value of the contract for the 5-year period was $5. Award was to be made based upon initial proposals. To the firm whose offer was evaluated as most advantageous to the government. Were all equally important. The combined technical/management factors and past performance were equal in importance to each other. View Decision Sam Facility Management, Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Sam Facility Management, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Superior Landscaping Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62477-03-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake, for grounds maintenance and management services. Sam primarily argues that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals and that a member of the technical evaluation panel is biased against the firm. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued as a section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract including indefinite-quantity work to provide grounds maintenance and management services to several Navy installations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area over a 1-year base period, with up to four 1-year option periods. The services to be provided include grass cutting and trimming; edging; weed control; turf fertilization; aerating; trenching and mulching planting beds; maintaining planting beds and tree rings; pruning; leaf pickup and disposal; and operating and maintaining irrigation systems. The government-estimated value of the contract for the 5-year period was $5,620,899, or between approximately $1 and $1.2 million per year. Price Evaluation Report at 1. Award was to be made based upon initial proposals, without conducting discussions, to the firm whose offer was evaluated as most advantageous to the government, considering technical/management factors, past performance, and price. The technical/management factors--relevant experience, project staffing, and support for small business, women-owned business and small disadvantaged business program--were all equally important. The combined technical/management factors and past performance were equal in importance to each other, and considered together, were of equal importance to price. The Navy received proposals from five offerors. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) report shows the following relevant evaluation results: . Offeror A Superior Sam Technical/Management Excellent Acceptable Marginal Experience Excellent Acceptable Marginal Project Staffing Excellent Acceptable Marginal Support for Small Business Acceptable Acceptable Acceptale Past Performance Good Excellent Good Total Price $5,473,763 $3,665,005 $3,809,640 The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), /1/ reviewed these evaluation results, along with the TEP's narrative findings, and determined that Superior offered the best value to the government. She determined that, although Offeror A received higher ratings, the value represented by those ratings did not support selection at its substantially higher price. She explained that the other offerors, including Sam, had weaknesses or deficiencies that would require discussions before they could be considered; proposed higher prices than that of Superior; and received good past performance ratings as opposed to Superior's excellent past performance rating. SSA Decision Document at 1. Award was made to Superior and this protest followed. Sam argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal under all of the evaluation factors, particularly the relevant experience and past performance factors; /2/ that the Navy improperly evaluated Superior's proposal under the relevant experience and past performance factors; and that a member of the TEP is biased against the firm. Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate proposals but instead will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations. Sterling Servs., Inc., B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD Para. 208 at 203; Lear Siegler Servs., Inc., B-280834, B-280834.2, Nov. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD Para. 136 at 7. The fact that the protester disagrees with the agency does not render the evaluation unreasonable. ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD Para. 450 at 7.