Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc., B-293097, January 29, 2004

B-293097 Jan 29, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc. protests the evaluation of proposals and award to KN Lawn Service, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-02-R-2211, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for grounds and tree maintenance services at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and contends that the agency should have awarded the contract to Paradise on the basis of its substantial experience despite its significantly higher price. We deny the protest. View Decision B-293097, Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc., January 29, 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: Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc. File: B-293097 Date: January 29, 2004 Terry E. Thomason, Esq., and Peter S. Knapman, Esq., Alston, Hunt, Floyd & Ing, for the protester. Peter J. Lenhart, Esq., for KN Lawn Service, Inc., an intervenor. Damon Martin, Esq., Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Robert Little, Esq., and Ron R. Ashlock, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of evaluation of proposals and award decision is denied where record shows evaluation and source selection were reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation scheme. DECISION Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc. protests the evaluation of proposals and award to KN Lawn Service, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N62742-02-R-2211, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for grounds and tree maintenance services at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The protester challenges the reasonableness of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and contends that the agency should have awarded the contract to Paradise on the basis of its substantial experience despite its significantly higher price. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with an indefinite'quantity item for a base year and 4 option year periods. The RFP provided the following two equally weighted factors for award: price and technical. The technical factor was comprised of two equally weighted subfactors, past performance/experience and –execution,— and was to include evaluation of the experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel and subcontractors. Under the past performance sub-subfactor, offers were to be evaluated for quality of services, schedule, cost control, business relations, management of key personnel, and quality awards and certifications; the evaluation was to be based on customer surveys for –similar— grounds and tree maintenance work. RFP amend. 4, at 2. A rating of –exceptional— for past performance was to be assigned where performance was reported to have exceeded many contractual requirements to the government's benefit. Id. at 4. For the –experience— sub-subfactor, the extent of the offeror's relevant experience on similar contracts was to be evaluated –to assess an offeror's qualifications to manage and complete the requirements on the solicitation.— Id. at 5. Adjectival ratings for the experience criterion were provided to assess the amount of the firm's similar experience (e.g., –substantial— or –adequate— experience). Additionally, past performance/experience risk was to be assessed in terms of –potential future performance.— Id. The execution subfactor had two equally weighted sub-subfactors: management and method. Adjectival ratings were to be assigned; for example, a rating of –very good— was to be assigned for exceeding requirements, being innovative and setting out plans, approaches, and analyses showing a good probability of success; and –acceptable— was to be assigned where requirements were met, but not exceeded, and the proposal showed a probability of success. Under the management sub-subfactor, proposals were to be evaluated for organizational structure, staffing/personnel, and cost control; under cost control, proposals were to be credited for exceeding requirements, such as for offering innovative approaches to reduce costs in the option periods. Id. at 6. For evaluation under the –method— sub-subfactor, offerors were to demonstrate their understanding of and approach to the work in the following areas: skills, techniques, equipment and supplies; risks expected to be encountered and mitigated; and quality control program.