B-299816, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., August 9, 2007

B-299816 Aug 09, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Beck's Spray Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to UAP 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-299816, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., August 9, 2007 Decision Matter of: Beck's Spray Service, Inc. File: B-299816 Date: August 9, 2007 Gregory M. Beck for the protester. Gregory C. Cox, for United Agri Products, 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 Where solicitation gave offerors discretion in choosing equipment for aerial application of herbicide, agency reasonably downgraded protester's proposal for failure to propose aircraft deemed appropriate for project sites with rough terrain and eliminated it from the competitive range. DECISION Beck's Spray Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to UAP 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 contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with 2 option years. The successful offeror was to provide all labor, transportation, tools, and necessary equipment for aerial spraying of contractor-furnished herbicide on an estimated 5,000 acres of BLM lands. Proposals were required to address all RFP requirements and to include all information specifically required by each RFP section. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis, with proposals evaluated under two non-price factors--technical capabilities (50 points) and past performance (50 points)--and price, with the non-price factors considered more important than price. Two firms, Beck's and UAP, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a technical proposal evaluation committee (TPEC). The TPEC assigned Beck's proposal only 20 of the possible 100 points, the deductions being due to a finding that the proposal did not include adequate technical and past performance information; in particular, the agency found that the proposal failed to adequately address Beck's familiarity with the type of terrain, as evidenced by its proposal to use only fixed-wing aircraft. UAP's proposal received 90 points based on a finding that its proposed team was exceptionally skilled and experienced; that UAP was familiar with the spray area's conditions and rugged terrain; and based on the firm's submission of information on quality assurance and safety. UAP's price was approximately 20 percent higher than Beck's, but was lower than the government's estimate, and the agency found that it was reasonable. The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), determined that Beck's evaluation score was so low that its proposal could not be considered within the competitive range, and concluded that UAP's proposal represented the best value to the government. After a debriefing, Beck's filed this protest. Beck's asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was flawed under the technical capability and past performance factors. 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. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Beck's asserts that the evaluation of its proposal under the technical capability factor was flawed primarily because the agency improperly downgraded its proposal for failing to offer rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters) for performance of the contract. In Beck's view, this represented an undisclosed evaluation consideration. This argument is without merit. The agency explains that Beck's proposal was downgraded--it received 10 of the 50 available points--for a number of weaknesses, only one of which was its failure to propose any use of helicopters. In this regard, the RFP notified offerors that some of the project sites were in very rugged terrain with deep drainages and steep slopes, RFP sect. C.1.4.1, and called for offerors to inspect the sites prior to submitting proposals. RFP sect. L, para. 52.237-1. The agency explains that its policy is not to specify the type of aircraft to be used, and the RFP clearly provided that the tools and equipment used for application of herbicides was at the contractor's discretion.