Allied Synergy International

B-417036 Jan 16, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ryan P. Slaughter, doing business as Allied Synergy International (ASI), of Franklin Furnace, Ohio, a small business, protests the award of a contract to SC Jones Services, Inc. (SCJS), of Hampton, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80KSC018R0014, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for commercial grounds maintenance, landscaping, and pest control services at the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and surrounding areas, in Florida. ASI contends that NASA misevaluated SCJS's price and awarded the contract based on the erroneous conclusion that SCJS's was the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Ryan P. Slaughter dba Allied Synergy International File: B-417036 Date: January 16, 2019 Ryan P. Slaughter, the protester. Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for SC Jones Services, Inc., the intervenor. Alexander T. Bakos, Esq., Steven Horn, Esq., and Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated offerors' prices is denied where the agency's price evaluation for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract line items, which used estimated quantities specified in the solicitation, was reasonable and consistent with the price evaluation described in the solicitation. DECISION Ryan P. Slaughter, doing business as Allied Synergy International (ASI), of Franklin Furnace, Ohio, a small business, protests the award of a contract to SC Jones Services, Inc. (SCJS)1, of Hampton, Virginia, also a small business, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 80KSC018R0014, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for commercial grounds maintenance, landscaping, and pest control services at the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and surrounding areas, in Florida. ASI contends that NASA misevaluated SCJS's price and awarded the contract based on the erroneous conclusion that SCJS's was the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 6, 2018, sought proposals from historically-underutilized business zone (HUBZone) small businesses to perform the KSC Grounds and Pest Control Contract II (KGPC II) for a base year and four option years. The RFP provided for proposals to be evaluated under two factors, technical acceptability and price, and specified that award would be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced technically acceptable proposal. AR, Tab 4, RFP at 75. Under the technical acceptability factor, the RFP identified six subfactors: recent relevant experience, project manager experience, certifications/licenses, union labor experience, resources, and phase-in. Each subfactor was to be rated as either meets or does not meet for the associated criteria. To be rated technically acceptable, a proposal had to be rated meets for all six subfactors. Id. Under the price factor, as clause B.1, the RFP provided pricing tables for offerors to submit a fixed price for 1 month of phase-in activity, and annual fixed prices for the basic grounds maintenance/landscaping requirement and the pest control services requirement. On each year's pricing table in clause B.1, the RFP noted that the indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) orders were "NTE [not to exceed] $300,000" annually. Id. at 6-8. Clause B.2 then stated that "[t]he total firm fixed price of this contract is identified in clause B.1 (above)." Id. at 8. In clause B.3, the RFP then provided a table for offerors to specify unit prices for 16 types of additional services that the agency could order using IDIQ contract line item numbers (CLIN). Id. Those IDIQ services included, for example, a per acre price for mowing near buildings, a per hour price for emergency cleanup, and per incident prices for removing trees of various sizes. Id. at 6-9. The RFP also provided pricing tables and an electronic pricing template, which was identified as attachment L-01, which consisted of two Excel electronic spreadsheets. The RFP cautioned offerors to ensure that the information in the electronic pricing template worksheets was consistent with the offeror's prices in its pricing tables. Id. at 9. The RFP stated that the agency would calculate a total evaluated price by adding the prices for basic grounds maintenance/landscaping requirements for the base period and all options, plus the prices for the pest control services requirements for the base period and all options, plus an amount for all IDIQ contract line items. Id. at 78.