BNUMBER:  B-270690.3
DATE:  June 27, 1996
TITLE:  Quality Lawn Maintenance

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Quality Lawn Maintenance

File:     B-270690.3

Date:June 27, 1996

Michael Van Fleet for the protester.
Brian Brinson, Excell Management Corporation, an intervenor.
Emily C. Hewitt, Esq., Gary F. Davis, Esq., and Richard E. Hurst, 
Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that solicitation requirements exceed contracting agency's 
minimum needs and are unduly restrictive of competition is denied 
where there is no showing that agency lacked a reasonable basis for 
the challenged requirements.

DECISION

Quality Lawn Maintenance protests the terms of invitation for bids 
(IFB) 
No. GS11P96MJC0001, issued by the General Services Administration for 
landscape maintenance services at 30 installations in Washington, D.C. 
and Maryland.  The protester contends that certain requirements in the 
solicitation exceed the agency's minimum needs and unduly restrict 
competition.

We deny the protest.

The amended IFB, set aside for small business concerns, includes a 
requirement for the contractor to have an on-staff horticulturist that 
is either certified by the American Association of Nurserymen or some 
equivalent organization, or possess a Bachelor of Science Degree in 
either horticulture or a related life science.  The protester contends 
that this requirement is in excess of the agency's minimum needs 
because the grounds maintenance services can successfully be provided 
without a certified or degreed horticulturist on staff.  The protester 
states that this requirement was not included in predecessor 
contracts, that the requirement is restrictive for small businesses 
that may not have such a horticulturist on staff, and that the 
requirement will greatly increase the cost of the contract.

In preparing a solicitation for supplies or services, a contracting 
agency must specify its needs and solicit offers in a manner designed 
to achieve full and open competition, and may include restrictive 
provisions or conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the 
agency's needs.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253a(a) (1994).  The determination of the 
agency's minimum needs and the best method of accommodating them are 
primarily within the agency's discretion and, therefore, we will not 
question such a determination unless the record clearly shows that it 
lacks any reasonable basis.  RMS Indus., B-247233; B-247234, May 1, 
1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  412.

The agency explains that the current IFB includes more complex 
technical and scientific requirements than included in prior 
contracts, especially due to a Presidential Directive, issued on April 
26, 1994, to enhance and ensure environmentally and economically 
beneficial practices on federal landscaped grounds.  This directive 
calls for utilization of techniques that complement and enhance the 
local environment and seek to minimize the adverse effects that the 
landscaping will have on it, such as the use of regionally native 
plants and employing landscaping practices and technologies that 
conserve water and prevent pollution, using integrated pest management 
techniques that control the use of toxic chemicals, recycling green 
waste, and minimizing runoff.  The agency also explains that the 30 
installations to be serviced under the contract involve cabinet-level 
agency headquarters buildings that serve as national showcases and are 
the subject of public scrutiny in light of the public's and the 
Administration's expressed interest in environmental matters.  To 
ensure effective implementation of these interests and directives, the 
agency determined that an on-staff degreed or certified horticulturist 
was required to provide higher standards of professional expertise.

We find the IFB's degreed/certified horticulturist requirement 
unobjectionable.  Although, as the protester states, landscaping 
services have been procured in the past without such requirement, the 
agency has shown that the current requirement is reasonably related to 
its current minimum needs of effectively coordinating and providing 
quality landscaping at the 30 federal installations to be serviced 
under the contract.  The technical requirements of the current IFB and 
the number of properties to be serviced have increased from prior 
contracts, and, as indicated by the agency, environmental concerns 
regarding the performance of the contract have also increased.  We 
find the agency's determination that the stated relevant 
educational/certification requirement will better ensure the provision 
of appropriate, quality services under the contract reasonable.  
Further, we do not consider the challenged requirement restrictive.  
Through the issuance of solicitation amendments, the agency, in our 
opinion, has ensured in a fair and unrestrictive manner that the 
professional qualifications required by the IFB can be reasonably 
obtained; the horticulturist qualifications requirement may be met 
with a life science degree other than in only horticulture, contrary 
to the protester's contention, or alternatively, through certification 
by any appropriate, relevant nurserymen organization.  In short, the 
record shows that the requirement is legitimately and reasonably 
related to the type and quality of services to be provided, that it is 
not overly restrictive, and that there is no showing that it would 
unreasonably affect the cost of the contract.  Accordingly, we have no 
basis to object to the stated requirement.

The IFB also requires four on-staff certified pesticide applicators 
and that pesticides be applied only by certified personnel.  The 
protester contends that this requirement is restrictive of competition 
since small businesses may not have four certified pesticide 
applicators, that the requirement exceeds pesticide application 
regulations issued by Washington, D.C. local government authorities 
(which require that pesticide application be supervised, but not 
performed, by a certified applicator), that it will increase the cost 
of the contract, and that it should thus be deleted from the IFB.  In 
response, the agency reports that for the last 2 years, all of its 
landscape maintenance contracts have included this requirement to best 
meet its minimum needs in implementing the Administration's directive 
for environmentally beneficial pest control practices and in 
protecting the health and safety of building occupants; the agency 
also states that this standard has been adopted by "green" 
(environmentally sensitive) organizations.

The protester has not shown that the requirement is excessive of the 
agency's actual needs; nor is it material here that the pesticide 
application certification requirement exceeds the requirements of 
local regulations.  See IBI Sec. Serv., Inc., B-233726.2, Apr. 6, 
1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  359.  Given the large number of installations to be 
serviced in the subject metropolitan area, and the importance of the 
effective, responsible and knowledgeable regulation and application of 
the pesticides--the use of which is to be limited in accordance with 
the referenced directive, but which limited use may still be toxic and 
potentially hazardous to the health and safety of building occupants 
if pesticides are applied incorrectly--we believe the applicator 
certification requirement is reasonably related to the agency's 
minimum needs and the scope of work required under the contract.  
Where, as here, a solicitation requirement relates to safety concerns, 
an agency has the discretion to set its minimum needs so as to achieve 
not just reasonable results but the highest possible reliability and 
effectiveness.  See United Terex, Inc., B-245606, Jan. 16, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  84; see PTI Servs., Inc., B-225712, May 1, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  459.  
Further, the agency points out that prior contracts which have 
included this pesticide application certification requirement have not 
resulted in a noticeable increase in cost, nor has the requirement 
been shown to be restrictive upon small business competition since the 
pesticide portion of the contract may be subcontracted.  

The protest is denied.[1]

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The protester also generally challenges the IFB's stated minimum 
personnel and equipment requirements.  The record, however, provides 
no basis to question the reasonableness of the requirements.  First, 
the protester challenges any requirement for a 32-employee minimum, 
but that requirement was reduced by solicitation amendment to 25 
(since cross-utilization of staff is anticipated) and, despite the 
protester's contention that the contractor should be free to staff the 
project as it deems necessary, the protester does not show that the 
amended minimum is unreasonably excessive or restrictive in light of 
the numerous services required in the IFB's statement of work.  
Quality Lawn also protests the minimum equipment requirements of the 
IFB, stating that a small business cannot be expected to own the many 
pieces of equipment called for in the IFB and that the contractor 
should be permitted to use the equipment the contractor determines to 
be necessary to accomplish the work.  The agency, by solicitation 
amendment, substantially reduced the initially stated quantity of 
identified equipment and has advised all bidders that ownership of the 
equipment is not necessary since sufficient evidence of leasing 
arrangements would be adequate.  Since the equipment required by the 
IFB is reasonably related to the scope of work to be performed, and 
the record does not show that the stated requirement poses a 
substantial adverse impact on competition, we have no basis to 
question the requirement.  See Consolidated Maintenance Co., B-220174, 
Nov. 12, 1985, 85-2 CPD  para.  539.