TITLE:  Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292320
DATE:  July 17, 2003
**********************************************************************
Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc., B-292320, July 17, 2003

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc.
    
File:             B-292320
    
Date:              July 17, 2003
    
Leonard W. Childs, Jr., Esq., Childs & Associates, for the protester.
Byron W. Waters, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Selection of a higher priced, higher rated quotation was reasonable, where
the solicitation provided for a *best value* selection decision
considering both price and non-price factors, including past performance,
and the contracting officer's best value selection decision reasonably
determined that the awardee's superior record of past performance
outweighed the protester's slightly lower price.
DECISION
    
Russell Enterprises of North Carolina, Inc. protests an award to Dennis
Cantrell under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ 8-3-03-20, issued by
the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for road maintenance in the
Oconee Ranger District, Georgia.  The protester challenges the agency's
evaluation and selection decision.
    
We deny the protest.
    
The Forest Service issued the RFQ on April 7, 2003, requesting quotations
for fixed prices-per-mile to smooth and shape the surface of 65 miles of
gravel road and to clean and shape 20 miles of drainage ditches along the
road.  The government estimate for this work was $10,000. 
    
The Forest Service conducted this procurement under the simplified
acquisition procedures prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
Part 13.  The RFQ stated that the agency would use a *best value*
evaluation plan considering the following three factors:  price, past
performance and availability of equipment.  The RFQ requested minimal
information from vendors:  prices, identification of the make and year of
the equipment that the vendor would use, and section K representations. 
No past performance information was requested inasmuch as the agency was
familiar with the vendors solicited.
    
The agency sent the RFQ to four small business concerns and received the
following three quotations:  Vendor A--$13,525; Cantrell--$9,325; and
Russell--$8,725.[1] 
    
The contracting officer first determined that the price quoted by Vendor A
was unreasonably high and eliminated that quotation from the competition. 
Agency Report, Tab 8, Contracting Officer's Abstract of Quotes and
Selection Decision, at 2.  The contracting officer then evaluated the
remaining two quotations.  Cantrell's price was $600 higher than Russell's
price. Under the equipment factor, both vendors committed a vehicle of the
same or similar model required by the RFQ, and the contracting officer did
not identify an evaluation advantage for either vendor. 
    
The contracting officer rated Russell *good* and Cantrell *excellent*
under the past performance factor.  Russell's past performance rating was
based on two mowing contracts[2] and Cantrell's was based on contracts for
mowing, trail maintenance, trail construction, road maintenance, road
construction and other projects.  Essentially, the contracting officer
rated Russell lower than Cantrell under past performance because Russell
had experienced some difficulties in performance and Cantrell had not. 
The contracting officer found that although Russell had generally
completed its contracts on time at an acceptable quality level, Russell
had equipment problems and occasionally had to redo work, whereas Cantrell
had a record of outstanding quality of work regardless of the type of
project, with very little contract administration required and few
equipment problems.  Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination. 
    
The contracting officer made a best value trade-off determination
comparing the evaluated differences in price and past performance of the
two quotations.  Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination; Tab 8,
Contracting Officer's Abstract of Quotes and Selection Decision, at 2. 
The contracting officer determined that the Forest Service likely would
spend less time administering a contract with Cantrell while receiving
high quality results.  The contracting officer recognized that Cantrell's
price was $600 higher than Russell's price, but determined that the
additional price was *very slight* and did not offset the value associated
with Cantrell's better past performance record.  The contracting officer
selected Cantrell's quotation as representing the best value to the
government.  Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination.
    
Russell essentially alleges that the Forest Service's best value
determination is unreasonable because the agency evaluation did not
consider all of the evaluation factors stated in the RFQ, and did not
reasonably evaluate the factors it did consider.
    
Simplified acquisition procedures are designed to, among other things,
reduce administrative expenses, promote efficiency and economy in
contracting, and avoid unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors. 
FAR S: 13.002; 41 U.S.C. S: 253(g)(1) (2000).  When using these
procedures, an agency must conduct the procurement consistent with a
concern for fair and equitable competition and must evaluate quotations in
accordance with the terms of the solicitation.  In reviewing protests of
an allegedly improper simplified acquisition evaluation and award
selection, we examine the record to determine whether the agency met this
standard and exercised its discretion reasonably.  Sawtooth Enters., Inc.,
B-281218, Dec. 7, 1998, 98‑2 CPD P: 139 at 3. 
    
Here, the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
factors stated in the RFQ.  Contrary to the protester's allegations, the
record shows that the agency's evaluation and best value determination
considered all three evaluation factors stated in the RFQ.
    
Specifically, under the equipment factor, the record shows that the
quotations committed the same equipment, and the record provides no basis
to conclude that the availability of equipment under one quotation was
superior to the other's. 
Under the price factor, the contracting officer reasonably considered
Russell's quotation's $600 advantage over Cantrell's to be *very slight.* 
Under the past performance factor, Cantrell had the advantage of a
superior performance history, which the contracting officer determined
showed that less contract administration had been required under contracts
with Cantrell than under those with Russell.  Although Russell disagrees
with the agency's judgment in this regard, it has not shown that the
evaluation was based on incorrect information or was otherwise
unreasonable.  The agency's evaluation identified incidents in Russell's
past performance that were of concern to the agency, such as work needing
to be redone and interim delays due to equipment problems.  It also
identifies that Cantrell experienced few or no such performance
difficulties, and that Cantrell's cooperation with the government exceeded
the minimum requirements and the government's expectations.  The protester
does not refute these facts.
    
Rather than providing evidence to show that Russell's past performance was
better (or that Cantrell's was worse) than evaluated, the protester merely
alleges that the difference in past performance of these two vendors is
not as great as the evaluation suggests, and that the contracting
officer's review and documentation of the vendors' performance histories
were insufficient.  We disagree.  Consistent with the lesser documentation
requirements for procurements conducted under simplified acquisition
procedures, the record here sufficiently documents the past performance
differences.  Given these differences and the slight price difference, we
find the agency's tradeoff analysis to be reasonable.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    

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

   [1] Russell's quotation additionally stated a prompt payment discount,
which Russell states the agency did not consider in evaluating Russell's
price.  FAR S: 13.101(b)(3) encourages agency to obtain such discounts,
but states that *[p]rompt payment discounts shall not be considered in the
evaluation of quotations.*  (We note that the discount, if obtained here,
would amount to a savings of $87.25.)
[2] The contracting officer did not have any performance history for road
maintenance contracts performed by Russell, but determined that this
limited contract history was not a *detracting factor* in the evaluation. 
Agency Report, Tab 7, Best Value Determination.