B-310808, Daylight Tree Service & Equipment, LLC, January 29, 2008

B-310808 Jan 29, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Daylight Tree Service & Equipment, LLC, protests the award of a contract to Woolery Timber Management by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG-9A63-S-07-0088, for tree and vegetation mastication services. Daylight contends that the Forest Service improperly evaluated Daylight's proposal using past performance information for another company. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310808, Daylight Tree Service & Equipment, LLC, January 29, 2008 Decision Matter of: Daylight Tree Service & Equipment, LLC File: B-310808 Date: January 29, 2008 Scott Muir, for the protester. Melissa McClellan, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the agency. Paula J. Haurilesko, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly considered the past performance of another company in evaluating protester is denied where the two companies shared the same address, telephone number, and point of contact, and where the protester included contacts from contracts performed by the affiliated company in its references. DECISION Daylight Tree Service & Equipment, LLC, protests the award of a contract to Woolery Timber Management by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG-9A63-S-07-0088, for tree and vegetation mastication services. Daylight contends that the Forest Service improperly evaluated Daylight's proposal using past performance information for another company. We deny the protest. The Forest Service issued on July 25, 2007, the RFP for a firm fixed-price contract for the mastication of overstocked trees, woody material, and other vegetation in a section of the TahoeNational Forest. RFP at 3. The RFP contemplated awarding to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government, and stated that the award would be based on a trade-off between price and non-price factors, comparing the relative risk of poor or nonperformance with the price. Id. at 41. The non-price factors, (1) organizational experience, (2) organizational past performance, (3) local community economic enhancement, and (4) understanding of the government's requirements, were to be of approximately equal value to each other, and when combined, were to be of approximately equal value to price. Id.Under the past performance evaluation factor, the RFP required the offerors to provide references for work performed during the past 3 years. Id. The Forest Service received seven proposals in response to the RFP. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. The Forest Service provided the sections of the proposals pertaining to the non-price evaluation factors to the evaluation team for review. Id.Two members of the evaluation team recognized Daylight's operations manager as the president of Associated Arborists, Inc., and noted that Daylight's address and telephone number were the same as that listed for Associated Arborists on prior Forest Service contracts. Agency Report (AR), Memorandum of Law, at 5-6. Consequently, the evaluation team assumed that Daylight and Associated Arborists were successor and predecessor companies, and rated Daylight's past performance based on their personal experience with Associated Arborists. CO Statement at 1. Daylight received a neutral rating in the past performance evaluation factor based on instances of poor performance by Associated Arborists, but received a satisfactory rating overall, indicating that it adequately met the requirements of the evaluation factors. AR, Tab 3, CO's Decision Letter, at 1, 2. The Forest Service awarded the contract to Woolery Timber Management, and Daylight filed an agency-level protest. AR, Tab 3, Daylight Protest, Sept. 27, 2007, at 1. In response to the protest, the Forest Service contacted some of the references listed in Daylight's proposal. AR, Tab 1, Memorandum of Law, at 4. Two of the references stated that they were unfamiliar with the work of Daylight, but recognized the name of Daylight's operations manager in connection with Associated Arborists and provided past performance information with regard to Associated Arborists. Id. at 6. Subsequently, the Forest Service denied Daylight's protest. AR, Tab 3, CO's Decision Letter, at 4. Daylight filed a protest challenging its past performance evaluation with this office, arguing only that the evaluation was flawed because it and Associated Arborists are not the same company.[1] Protest at 1.