TITLE: Matter of:    Sam Facility Management, Inc. 
BNUMBER:  B-292237
DATE:  July 22, 2003
**********************************************************************
Sam Facility Management, Inc., B-292237, July 22, 2003

   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:    Sam Facility Management, Inc.
    
File:             B-292237
    
Date:              July 22, 2003
    
Charles E. Saunders, Esq., for the protester.
Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for Superior
Landscaping Co., Inc., an intervenor.
Damon A. Martin, Esq., and Javier E. Gonzalez, Esq., Department of the
Navy, for the agency.
Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST
    
Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals of both the protester
and the awardee is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
criteria.

   DECISION
    
Sam Facility Management, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Superior
Landscaping Co., Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N62477-03-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Navy, Engineering Field
Activity Chesapeake, for grounds maintenance and management services.  Sam
primarily argues that the Navy improperly evaluated proposals and that a
member of the technical evaluation panel is biased against the firm. 
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The solicitation, issued as a section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the
award of a fixed-price contract including indefinite-quantity work to
provide grounds maintenance and management services to several Navy
installations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area over a 1-year base
period, with up to four 1-year option periods.  The services to be
provided include grass cutting and trimming; edging; weed control; turf
fertilization; aerating; trenching and mulching planting beds; maintaining
planting beds and tree rings; pruning; leaf pickup and disposal; and
operating and maintaining irrigation systems.  The government-estimated
value of the contract for the 5-year period was $5,620,899, or between
approximately $1 and $1.2 million per year.  Price Evaluation Report at 1.
    
Award was to be made based upon initial proposals, without conducting
discussions, to the firm whose offer was evaluated as most advantageous to
the government, considering technical/management factors, past
performance, and price.  The technical/management factors--relevant
experience, project staffing, and support for small business, women-owned
business and small disadvantaged business
program--were all equally important.  The combined technical/management
factors and past performance were equal in importance to each other, and
considered together, were of equal importance to price.
    
The Navy received proposals from five offerors.  The technical evaluation
panel (TEP) report shows the following relevant evaluation results:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                 |Offeror A   |Superior    |Sam         |
|---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Technical/Management             |Excellent   |Acceptable  |Marginal    |
|    Experience                   |Excellent   |Acceptable  |Marginal    |
|     Project Staffing            |Excellent   |Acceptable  |Marginal    |
|     Support for Small Business  |Acceptable  |Acceptable  |Acceptable  |
|---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Past Performance                 |Good        |Excellent   |Good        |
|---------------------------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Total Price                      |$5,473,763  |$3,665,005  |$3,809,640  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority
(SSA),[1] reviewed these evaluation results, along with the TEP's
narrative findings, and determined that Superior offered the best value to
the government.  She determined that, although Offeror A received higher
ratings, the value represented by those ratings did not support selection
at its substantially higher price.  She explained that the other offerors,
including Sam, had weaknesses or deficiencies that would require
discussions before they could be considered; proposed higher prices than
that of Superior; and received good past performance ratings as opposed to
Superior's excellent past performance rating.  SSA Decision Document at
1.  Award was made to Superior and this protest followed.
    
Sam argues that the Navy improperly evaluated its proposal under all of
the evaluation factors, particularly the relevant experience and past
performance factors;[2] that the Navy improperly evaluated Superior's
proposal under the relevant experience and past performance factors; and
that a member of the TEP is biased against the firm.
    
Where an evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate
proposals but instead will examine the record to determine whether the
agency's judgment was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation
criteria and applicable statutes and regulations.  Sterling Servs., Inc.,
B-286326, Dec. 11, 2000, 2000 CPD P: 208 at 203; Lear Siegler Servs.,
Inc., B-280834, B-280834.2, Nov. 25, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 136 at 7.  The fact
that the protester disagrees with the agency does not render the
evaluation unreasonable.  ESCO, Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD P:
450 at 7.  Where a solicitation requires the evaluation of offerors' past
performance, an agency has the discretion to determine the scope of the
offerors' performance histories to be considered, provided all proposals
are evaluated on the same basis and consistent with the solicitation
requirements.  Honolulu Shipyard, Inc., B-291760, Feb. 11, 2003, 2003 CPD
P: 47 at 4.
    
Sam's principal challenge to the reasonableness of the Navy's evaluation
of proposals concerns the relevant experience and past performance
factors.  We will discuss both together since Sam has commingled its
arguments concerning these two separate factors.
    
The RFP gave the following instructions concerning the relevant experience
factor:
    
a.     The offeror shall provide at least two recurring or fully completed
projects within the past five (5) years that demonstrate similarity to
size, scope, function, complexity and value of this project.  The offeror
shall identify the contract number, title, locations serviced, contract
term and annual value.  Projects should indicate whether your firm was the
prime contractor or subcontractor.
    
b.     Explain any previous Phase-In and Mobilization experience and how
your experience will help you successfully phase-in and mobilize your
resources by the performance start date of this contract.  Explain your
financial capability to ensure successful phase-in of this contract by
providing current credit rating, lines of credit, sources of funds and
proposed means for financing any resulting contract.[3]
    
RFP S: M.2.
    
Sam began the "Relevant Experience" section of its proposal with a figure
entitled "Matrix of Services by Contract."  Protester's Technical Proposal
at 2.  This matrix lists various types of work performed under 12
contracts that are generally referred to by no more identification than
the name of the contracting agency.  In response to the RFP's stated
requirements for details of projects submitted under the relevant
experience factor, Sam listed three projects.  The first project was
described as a recently-completed, fixed-price [DELETED] contract for
various grounds maintenance services performed over 5 years, with an
"initial yearly value" of $355,000.  Id. at 3.  The second project was
described as an [DELETED] contract for various grounds maintenance
services with the listed dates "199902" to "199909"[4] and a listed
"initial value" of $153,000.  Id. at 4.  The third project was described
as a [DELETED] contract for various grounds maintenance services with no
listed dates and a value of $125,000.  Id.  In addition to its
descriptions of these three projects, Sam included sections on its
phase-in and mobilization experience and its finances. 
    
The Navy rated Sam's proposal marginal under the relevant experience
factor.  The agency found that the firm listed two significant grounds
projects that were performed by a firm with which Sam had worked for some
years and had acquired in 2001.  The Navy stated that these two projects
demonstrated similarity in function, but fell short in size, scope,
complexity, and value.  The Navy also found that the phase-in and
mobilization information provided was not sufficiently detailed, and that
Sam failed to provide any specific financial information.  TEP Report at
6.
    
Sam argues that the Navy improperly limited its consideration of the
firm's relevant experience to the three projects "blocked off" in the
relevant experience section of its proposal, and characterizes these three
projects as "the least" of its contracts.  Protester's Comments at 4.  Sam
contends that the Navy should have considered four other contracts
referenced in its "Matrix of Services by Contract" since details on these
four contracts were included in past performance questionnaires received
by the agency.
    
As an initial matter, it was Sam, not the Navy, that decided to list "the
least" of its contracts as those most representative of its relevant
experience in the relevant experience section of its proposal.  The
proposal's mere reference to other contracts in its "Matrix of Services of
Contract" figure did not include any of the detail required under the
relevant experience factor.  While Sam's proposal did include information
about other contracts in the past performance section of its proposal,
offerors bear the burden for failing to submit an adequately written
proposal and contracting agencies evaluating one section of a proposal are
not obligated to go in search of needed information which the offeror has
omitted or failed adequately to present.  Fluor Daniel, Inc., B-262051,
B-262051.2, Nov. 21, 1995, 95-2 CPD P: 241 at 8.
    
In any event, we have reviewed the past performance questionnaires Sam
argues should have been considered in evaluating its relevant experience
and find no basis to conclude that their consideration would have altered
the Navy's evaluation of the firm's proposal.  Again, the work required
here involved multiple sites and was valued at approximately $1.1 million
per year.  The basis for Sam's marginal rating was the Navy's concern
that, while its projects were similar in function to the work required
here, they were not similar in size, scope, complexity, and value.  One
questionnaire, which concerned an [DELETED] contract for grounds
maintenance services, indicates that the total value of the 4-year
contract was less than $1 million, and another questionnaire, which
concerned the [DELETED] contract discussed above, indicates that the
annual value of the contract was only $20,000.  At a minimum, both of
these contracts are substantially smaller in size and value than the one
at issue here.  A third questionnaire concerns a contract performed
between
May 1992 and May 1997 but, under the relevant experience factor, the
agency could only consider projects that were ongoing or completed within
the past 5 years.  The fourth questionnaire, which concerned the [DELETED]
contract discussed above, was identified as a fixed-price contract with a
dollar value far in excess of the $355,000 value Sam listed in the
relevant experience section of its proposal.  Given the discrepancy in the
value of this fixed-price contract, and Sam's apparent lack of knowledge
as to the actual value of the contract,[5] we cannot fault the agency for
basing its evaluation of Sam's relevant experience on the information Sam
provided in the relevant experience portion of its proposal.  Taking these
conclusions together with the fact that Sam has failed to rebut the
agency's detailed response to its allegations concerning the evaluation of
its phase-in and mobilization experience and its financial information, we
conclude that the protester has not shown that the Navy's evaluation of
its relevant experience was unreasonable. 
    
Sam also alleges that the Navy unreasonably evaluated Superior's proposal
under the relevant experience factor.
    
Superior listed two projects in the relevant experience section of its
proposal.  The first project was for grounds maintenance and landscaping
services at an Air Force Base.  Superior stated that it was currently
performing the second year of this 5-year contract, which was valued at
approximately $1.1 million per year or a total of approximately $5.6
million.  The second project was as a subcontractor providing grounds
maintenance services under a larger Navy contract in Philadelphia. 
Superior stated that this contract was valued at $260,000 annually, with a
total value of $78 million.
    
The Navy rated Superior's proposal acceptable under the relevant
experience factor, finding that it listed two relevant grounds projects
that showed strong similarities in size, scope, function, complexity, and
value to the solicitation.  The Navy also found that Superior showed an
acceptable level of phase-in experience, with clear start-up planning for
the project, and a $[DELETED] line of credit for start-up costs.
    
Sam first argues that Superior has overstated the value of its Air Force
contract.  According to Sam, in the past performance section of Superior's
proposal, the reference for the firm's Air Force contract indicated that
the total value of the contract over 2 years was only $2,563,261, and not
the approximately $5.6 million indicated by Superior.  As the record makes
clear, however, this discrepancy is explained by the fact that the total
value indicated by Superior was for the entire
5-year period--the reference listed the value of the contract based upon
the 2 years already performed. 
    
Sam also argues that Superior's Philadelphia contract cannot have a total
value of $78 million if the annual value of the contract is $260,000.  As
the Navy explains, however, the $78 million figure represents the total
value of the prime contract, and Superior noted that it was a
subcontractor whose subcontract was valued at $260,000 per year.  The TEP
chair states that his evaluation was based upon his understanding that the
value of the work performed by Superior under the contract was, in fact,
$260,000 annually.  TEP Chair Statement P: 5. 
    
Sam appears to argue that the Navy improperly failed to consider whether
Superior's projects were similar in value to the work here in evaluating
Superior's proposal.  The Navy denies this charge.  The Navy explains that
Superior's Air Force contract was of similar size, scope, function,
complexity, and value to the prospective contract; since Superior's
Philadelphia contract was dissimilar to the prospective contract in terms
of size, complexity, and value--but similar in function--its proposal
received a lower overall rating of acceptable under the relevant
experience factor instead of the highest rating of excellent. 
Supplemental Agency Report at 3.  The RFP does not state that a contract
would not be considered if it were not equivalent to the anticipated
contract under all of the relative experience criteria.  Roy F. Weston,
Inc., B-274945 et al., Jan. 15, 1997, 97-1 CPD P: 92 at 8.  In our view,
the Navy's application of the RFP's relevant experience criteria, whereby
it gave more credit for projects that met all criteria and less credit for
projects that did not, reflects an appropriate weighing and balancing of
the listed experience criteria. 
M. Erdal Kamisli, Ltd., B-291522, Dec. 23, 2002, 2003 CPD P: 19 at 4.  As
a result, we have no basis to find that the Navy unreasonably evaluated
Superior's proposal as acceptable under the relevant experience
factor.    
    
The RFP stated that the evaluation of proposals under the past performance
factor would be based on "review of previous Federal, State, and Local
Government, and private contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity
to this requirement" to determine the offeror's relative capability.  RFP
S: M.2.  The Navy planned to review each offeror's record of conforming to
specifications and standards of good workmanship, adherence to contract
schedules, subcontractor management, and quality control programs by
reviewing questionnaires submitted from references "from similar projects
performed with[in] the last five years."  Id.  Offerors were responsible
for ensuring that the references submitted completed questionnaires to the
Navy.[6]
    
Sam alleges that the Navy's evaluation of its proposal as good under the
past performance factor was unreasonable because it did not receive such a
"low" rating on any of its past performance questionnaires.  Protester's
Comments at 6.  A review of those questionnaires shows that Sam is
incorrect.  In addition to excellent and very good ratings, the firm
received a poor rating for contract administration/ management under one
contract and a good rating for the quality of its work under another
contract.  As a result, we have no basis to conclude that the agency's
evaluation of the firm's past performance was unreasonable. 
    
Sam also alleges that, since most of Superior's past performance
questionnaires concern ongoing contracts, the Navy could not consider them
because the RFP required that contracts considered under the past
performance factor must have been completed within the last 5 years.  We
do not agree.  The solicitation does not require that contracts considered
here must have been completed within the last
5 years, only that they must have been "performed with[in] the last five
years." 
RFP S: M.2.  In our view, this language encompasses ongoing contracts. 
Sam's argument that the Navy improperly failed to consider whether these
contracts were similar in value to the work required here overlooks the
fact that the solicitation did not list value as a criterion to be
considered under the past performance factor.  Sam has given us no basis
to question the Navy's evaluation of Superior's proposal as excellent
under the past performance factor.
    
We now turn to Sam's remaining challenges to the evaluation of its
proposal under the technical/management factors.  The Navy rated Sam's
proposal as marginal under the project staffing factor because the firm's
staffing plan lacked sufficient on-site supervision; its number of
full-time equivalents seemed to be low; the organizational chart provided
was vague and very limited, and did not provide for any crew or team
leaders; and the firm did not "present a good grasp of the requirements of
the spec, and instead offer[ed] essentially [its] own spec at the end of
the submittal, which does not speak to the requirements of the
solicitation."  TEP Report at 6.  In its protest, Sam challenged the
Navy's evaluation as unreasonable because its proposal named an
experienced project manager and quality control manager and showed that
the firm had substantial and successful experience with this plan and
organizational chart.  Protest at 7.  The agency report fully addressed
these allegations, pointing out that some were factually inaccurate or
misrepresented the contents of the proposal, and providing legal and
factual support for the TEP's findings.  Sam's comments do not rebut the
agency's position, but simply state that the firm has been "proven" over
18 years.  In our view, this response is insufficient to show that the
Navy's evaluation was unreasonable.
    
In response to Sam's protest allegation that the Navy unreasonably
evaluated its proposal as marginal under the small business and
subcontracting efforts factor, the Navy pointed out that it had rated the
proposal as acceptable, not marginal.  The Navy based its rating on the
fact that award to the firm would permit the Navy to meet its goals
because the firm was a small disadvantaged woman-owned business.  The Navy
explained that the proposal was not rated higher because the firm provided
an inadequate response to the RFP requirement to provide a brief narrative
of how it would determine what work would be subcontracted and set aside
for such entities for this project.  In its comments, Sam does not address
the Navy's position except to argue that this "damaging" acceptable rating
is an "utter obvious abuse of discretion."  Protester's Comments at 8.  We
do not think that this charge constitutes a basis to find the evaluation
unreasonable. 
    
Finally, Sam argues that one of the TEP members, who also serves as the
contracting activity's small business specialist, is biased against the
firm.[7]  In this regard, the son of Sam's president submitted an
affidavit in which he states that he overheard this individual state that
he "almost caused her to lose her job" and "was going to make sure" that
Sam never got another contract.  Protester's Affidavit P: 4.  In response,
the agency small business specialist submitted a statement in which she
asserts that she "never stated" she would see to it that the firm never
got another contract and "never made any statement" that could be
reasonably construed as the protester is alleging.  Agency Small Business
Specialist's Affidavit P:P: 2, 3, 4. 
    
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that we need not resolve
this dispute because, even if the protester is correct, we do not find any
possible prejudice to the protester.  As is the case in all protests,
where the record does not demonstrate that, but for the agency's actions,
the protester would have a reasonable chance of receiving award, we will
not sustain a protest, even if a deficiency in the procurement is found. 
McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD P: 54 at 3; see
Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 
Here, as noted above, the materials that formed the basis of this decision
were provided to Sam's counsel, under a protective order issued by our
Office, and Sam was given every opportunity to point out inaccuracies or
errors in those materials.  While Sam disagrees with many of the
conclusions in the record, it has not shown that statements provided there
were inaccurate or false, or that the conclusions themselves were
unreasonable.  Since we generally presume that contracting officials act
in good faith, Indian Affiliates, Inc., B-243420, Aug. 1, 1991, 91-2 CPD
P: 109 at 5, and since Sam has been given every reasonable opportunity to
demonstrate that it was harmed by unfair or improper bias--and has failed
to make that showing--we have no basis to conclude that the protester was
not treated fairly by the Navy in this procurement.  IGIT, Inc.,
B-275299.2, June 23, 1997, 97-2 CPD P: 7 at 9-10; see also IT Facility
Servs.--Joint Venture, B-285841, Oct. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD
P: 177 at 5 n.13. 
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

                            ------------------------

   [1] Sam's views notwithstanding, it is neither uncommon nor inherently
improper for a contracting officer to also serve as a source selection
authority.  See, e.g., AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409,
B-291409.2, Dec. 16, 2002, 2003 CPD P: 13 at 3; Aumann, Inc., B-251585.2,
B-251585.3, May 28, 1993, 93-1 CPD P: 423 at 2.
[2] Sam argues that it was "prejudiced in pricing" because its price for
the fixed-price work was closer to the government estimate for such work
than was Superior's, and because its price for the fixed-price work in the
base year was only $[DELETED] higher than that of Superior.  Despite the
fact that its attorney had access to the entire price evaluation report
and business clearance memorandum, under a protective order issued by our
Office, Sam challenges no aspect of the agency's determination that
Superior's price was reasonable and realistic.  Absent such specific
challenges, the firm's complaints do not show that the price evaluation
was unreasonable.
[3] As is evident from this language, Sam is incorrect when it argues that
the solicitation required any recurring projects to be more than 50
percent complete, Protester's Comments at 5, and incorrect (and
inconsistent) when it argues that the solicitation required that projects
considered under the relevant experience factor be completed.  Protester's
Supplemental Comments at 4. 
[4] We assume that these dates are February 1999 to September 1999.
[5] In its protest, Sam states that it "is likely and very possible" that
the contract is worth more than $355,000 today given increases in labor
and other costs. 
Protest at 5.  It is unclear how, if this was a fixed-price contract, it
could increase in value over time (the contract is not included in the
record), or why Sam would not know the value of its own contract.
[6] The Navy explains that it did not receive any questionnaires
concerning Sam's past performance, but took it upon itself to contact some
of Sam's prior clients to solicit such questionnaires.  Agency
Supplemental Report at 4.
[7] In addition, citing errors it alleges existed in this procurement, the
protester argues that two members of the TEP are not qualified to evaluate
proposals.  While the record shows that this was not a model procurement,
Sam's allegations of errors have largely been found to be without basis
and we cannot conclude that the TEP members were unqualified.  Sam also
argues that the TEP chairperson was not listed in the source selection
plan as a TEP member; the source selection plan does include this
individual as a member of the TEP.  SSP P: 2.2.1.