Dependable Lawn Care, Inc.

B-411852 Oct 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Dependable Lawn Care, Inc., of Blue Island, Illinois, protests the award of a contract to Maintenance Engineers, Inc. (MEI), of Scottsdale, Arizona, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4419-15-T-0101 for lawn maintenance services. Dependable argues that MEI's proposal should have been found to be technically unacceptable and that the agency improperly treated the firms' proposals disparately during the evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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. Decision Matter of:  Dependable Lawn Care, Inc. File:  B-411852 Date:  October 22, 2015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Lawrence Sklute, Esq., and Ethan Brown, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. Barbara A. Duncombe, Esq., Suzanne Sumner, Esq., and Casie E. Hollis, Esq., Taft Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, for Maintenance Engineers, Inc., the intervenor. Maj. David S. Gilkes, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly found the awardee’s proposal to be technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Dependable Lawn Care, Inc., of Blue Island, Illinois, protests the award of a contract to Maintenance Engineers, Inc. (MEI), of Scottsdale, Arizona, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA4419-15-T-0101 for lawn maintenance services.  Dependable argues that MEI’s proposal should have been found to be technically unacceptable and that the agency improperly treated the firms’ proposals disparately during the evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on March 31, 2015, sought quotations for lawn maintenance services at Altus Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma.  The RFQ contemplated award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs), to be performed over one base year and four option years.  RFQ at 4-148.  Quotations were to be evaluated on a best-value basis considering price, technical acceptability, and past performance acceptability.  Id. at 168.  Award was to be made to the vendor submitting the lowest-priced, technically acceptable quotation.  Id. As relevant here, technical acceptability was to assess whether a vendor’s proposal would satisfy the government’s minimum requirements.  Quotations were to be determined to be technically acceptable if they included all of the herbicides and hazardous material required to meet the performance requirements of the contract.  Id. at 169. Ten quotations were received by the agency, including those from Dependable and MEI.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 8, Price Competition Memorandum (PCM), at 1.  Of the 10 quotations received, two were found to be unacceptable.  Id.  at 5, 8-9.  Of the remaining acceptable quotes, MEI submitted the lowest total evaluated price of $2,357,763.00, and Dependable the second-lowest total evaluated price of $2,779,113.61.  Id. at 11-12.  MEI was found to be the lowest-priced, technically acceptable vendor and on this basis the contracting officer decided to award the contract to MEI.  Id. at 12. DISCUSSION Dependable first argues that MEI’s quotation should have been found technically unacceptable because the firm’s technical proposal used the words “tentative” and “for example” in its integrated pest management (IPM) plan for Altus AFB.  Protester’s Comments at 2-6.  In this regard, the protester argues that the technical acceptability factor “required a list of all of the actual herbicides and hazardous material that would be used to meet the contract performance requirements, not a tentative or illustrative list of some of them.”  Id. at 3. In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will neither reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Analytical Innovative Solutions, LLC, B-408727, Nov. 6, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 263 at 3.  Rather, we will review the record only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  Id. The record shows that the agency determined that MEI’s technical proposal included all of the herbicides and hazardous material required to meet the performance requirements of the RFQ.  AR, exh.