B-299599, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., June 18, 2007

B-299599 Jun 18, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beck's Spray Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Thomas Helicopters, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAR070059, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for aerial spraying of herbicide. Beck's challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the source selection. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299599, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., June 18, 2007 Decision Matter of: Beck's Spray Service, Inc. File: B-299599 Date: June 18, 2007 Gregory M. Beck for the protester. Rod Thomas, for Thomas Helicopters, Inc., an intervenor. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation of protester's technical proposal, resulting in score of less than half the available points, was unobjectionable where proposal lacked information on prior experience with required navigation system and ground operations, most past performance references were of limited relevance, and single responding reference stated it would hire offeror again –with hesitation.— 2. Where solicitation provided for comparative evaluation and identified experience and past performance as technical evaluation factors, and agency in fact evaluated proposals on comparative basis, agency's downgrading of protester's proposal under identified factors did not constitute nonresponsibility determination, and thus was not subject to regulations applicable to such determinations. DECISION Beck's Spray Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Thomas Helicopters, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. NAR070059, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for aerial spraying of herbicide. Beck's challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the source selection. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for all labor, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, supplies, and incidentals for aerial spraying of government-furnished herbicide on approximately 28,472 acres of land located in and around BLM's Boise, Idaho field office. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis, with proposals evaluated under three factors--experience/technical capability, past performance, and price. The non-price factors, combined, were significantly more important than price. Three firms submitted proposals, including Beck's and Thomas, and all three were considered acceptable. Beck's proposal offered the lowest price, but received the lowest technical score based on its submission of abbreviated experience information and its limited past performance with herbicide applications. Thomas's proposal offered the second-lowest price and received the highest technical score based on its high degree of experience and highly favorable past performance recommendation. The contracting officer selected Thomas's proposal as the best value based on her determination that its technical advantage over Beck's (and the other offeror's) proposal more than justified its higher price. After receiving a debriefing, Beck's filed this protest. Beck's asserts that the technical evaluation was flawed under the experience and past performance factors. In the protester's view, the agency failed to recognize its long flying experience, including global positioning system (GPS) experience, and its good past performance record. In considering a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is confined to determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP, B'286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10'11. The evaluation here was unobjectionable. EXPERIENCE Under the experience factor, offerors were required to address: their experience and knowledge of their differentially corrected GPS (DGPS) guidance system, including where and for whom the system was used; the applicator's actual experience and company experience with forestry, rangeland, and chemical applications in agricultural projects; method of distribution; experience with equipment used on the project; work crew experience; experience with remote locations in difficult terrain; and safety and spill containment equipment. Regarding the DGPS system, the agency states that it is important to performance because it provides both a documented record of the herbicide application and proof of coverage for contract payment purposes.