Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003

B-292320 Jul 17, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Higher rated quotation was reasonable. The government estimate for this work was $10. No past performance information was requested inasmuch as the agency was familiar with the vendors solicited. 725. /1/ The contracting officer first determined that the price quoted by Vendor A was unreasonably high and eliminated that quotation from the competition. Cantrell's price was $600 higher than Russell's price. Russell's past performance rating was based on two mowing contracts /2/ and Cantrell's was based on contracts for mowing. The contracting officer recognized that Cantrell's price was $600 higher than Russell's price. Determined that the additional price was "very slight" and did not offset the value associated with Cantrell's better past performance record. View Decision Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc. protests an award to Dennis Cantrell under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ 8-3-03-20, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for road maintenance in the Oconee Ranger District, Georgia. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation and selection decision. We deny the protest. The Forest Service issued the RFQ on April 7, 2003, requesting quotations for fixed prices-per-mile to smooth and shape the surface of 65 miles of gravel road and to clean and shape 20 miles of drainage ditches along the road. The government estimate for this work was $10,000. The Forest Service conducted this procurement under the simplified acquisition procedures prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13. The RFQ stated that the agency would use a "best value" evaluation plan considering the following three factors: price, past performance and availability of equipment. The RFQ requested minimal information from vendors: prices, identification of the make and year of the equipment that the vendor would use, and section K representations. No past performance information was requested inasmuch as the agency was familiar with the vendors solicited. The agency sent the RFQ to four small business concerns and received the following three quotations: Vendor A--$13,525; Cantrell--$9,325; and Russell--$8,725. /1/ The contracting officer first determined that the price quoted by Vendor A was unreasonably high and eliminated that quotation from the competition. Agency Report, Tab 8, Contracting Officer's Abstract of Quotes and Selection Decision, at 2. The contracting officer then evaluated the remaining two quotations. Cantrell's price was $600 higher than Russell's price. Under the equipment factor, both vendors committed a vehicle of the same or similar model required by the RFQ, and the contracting officer did not identify an evaluation advantage for either vendor. The contracting officer rated Russell "good" and Cantrell "excellent" under the past performance factor. Russell's past performance rating was based on two mowing contracts /2/ and Cantrell's was based on contracts for mowing, trail maintenance, trail construction, road maintenance, road construction and other projects. Essentially, the contracting officer rated Russell lower than Cantrell under past performance because Russell had experienced some difficulties in performance and Cantrell had not. The contracting officer found that although Russell had generally completed its contracts on time at an acceptable quality level, Russell had equipment problems and occasionally had to redo work, whereas Cantrell had a record of outstanding quality of work regardless of the type of project, with very little contract administration required and few equipment problems. Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination. The contracting officer made a best value trade-off determination comparing the evaluated differences in price and past performance of the two quotations. Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination; Tab 8, Contracting Officer's Abstract of Quotes and Selection Decision, at 2. The contracting officer determined that the Forest Service likely would spend less time administering a contract with Cantrell while receiving high quality results. The contracting officer recognized that Cantrell's price was $600 higher than Russell's price, but determined that the additional price was "very slight" and did not offset the value associated with Cantrell's better past performance record. The contracting officer selected Cantrell's quotation as representing the best value to the government.