TITLE: Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc., B-293097, January 29, 2004
BNUMBER: B-293097
DATE: January 29, 2004
**********************************************************************
Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc., B-293097, January 29, 2004
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: Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc.
File: B-293097
Date: January 29, 2004
Terry E. Thomason, Esq., and Peter S. Knapman, Esq., Alston, Hunt, Floyd &
Ing, for the protester.
Peter J. Lenhart, Esq., for KN Lawn Service, Inc., an intervenor.
Damon Martin, Esq., Richard G. Welsh, Esq., Robert Little, Esq., and Ron
R. Ashlock, Esq., Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, for the agency.
Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest of evaluation of proposals and award decision is denied where
record shows evaluation and source selection were reasonable and
consistent with solicitation*s evaluation scheme.
DECISION
Paradise Landscape Maintenance, Inc. protests the evaluation of proposals
and award to KN Lawn Service, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No.
N62742-02-R-2211, issued as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside by the
Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for grounds
and tree maintenance services at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The protester
challenges the reasonableness of the agency*s evaluation of the awardee*s
proposal and contends that the agency should have awarded the contract to
Paradise on the basis of its substantial experience despite its
significantly higher price.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with an
indefinite‑quantity item for a base year and 4 option year periods.
The RFP provided the following two equally weighted factors for award:
price and technical. The technical factor was comprised of two equally
weighted subfactors, past performance/experience and *execution,* and was
to include evaluation of the experience and qualifications of proposed key
personnel and subcontractors. Under the past performance sub-subfactor,
offers were to be evaluated for quality of services, schedule, cost
control, business relations, management of key personnel, and quality
awards and certifications; the evaluation was to be based on customer
surveys for *similar* grounds and tree maintenance work. RFP amend. 4, at
2. A rating of *exceptional* for past performance was to be assigned
where performance was reported to have exceeded many contractual
requirements to the government*s benefit. Id. at 4. For the *experience*
sub-subfactor, the extent of the offeror*s relevant experience on similar
contracts was to be evaluated *to assess an offeror*s qualifications to
manage and complete the requirements on the solicitation.* Id. at 5.
Adjectival ratings for the experience criterion were provided to assess
the amount of the firm*s similar experience (e.g., *substantial* or
*adequate* experience). Additionally, past performance/experience risk
was to be assessed in terms of *potential future performance.* Id.
The execution subfactor had two equally weighted sub-subfactors:
management and method. Adjectival ratings were to be assigned; for
example, a rating of *very good* was to be assigned for exceeding
requirements, being innovative and setting out plans, approaches, and
analyses showing a good probability of success; and *acceptable* was to be
assigned where requirements were met, but not exceeded, and the proposal
showed a probability of success. Under the management sub-subfactor,
proposals were to be evaluated for organizational structure,
staffing/personnel, and cost control; under cost control, proposals were
to be credited for exceeding requirements, such as for offering innovative
approaches to reduce costs in the option periods. Id. at 6. For
evaluation under the *method* sub-subfactor, offerors were to demonstrate
their understanding of and approach to the work in the following areas:
skills, techniques, equipment and supplies; risks expected to be
encountered and mitigated; and quality control program. Additionally,
management/method risk was to be evaluated and a rating of *low* risk was
to be assigned to proposals showing *little potential to cause disruption
of schedule, increase in costs, or degradation of performance.* Id. at
7. The RFP notified offerors that award would be made to the firm whose
offer provided the best value to the agency in terms of price and
technical factors.
Eight proposals were received in response to the RFP. Two rounds of
discussions were conducted and final proposal revisions were received from
five firms. Paradise submitted the highest priced proposal, at
$14,705,853.80 (including option periods); KN*s was lowest, at
$10,395,686.75. Another firm*s proposal was only slightly higher priced
than the KN proposal, but received slightly lower technical ratings than
KN*s and Paradise*s proposals.
The Paradise and KN proposals received identical technical ratings
(including the risk ratings), except under two sub-subfactors, experience
and management. Paradise*s proposal received a higher experience rating
(of *substantial*) than the KN proposal based on the protester*s
additional similar experience, including its incumbent contract for the
services sought under the RFP. KN*s proposal set out the firm*s and its
proposed subcontractor*s relevant experience on smaller, yet similar,
contracts; the largest grounds maintenance services contract reported was
for $1.7 million, more than half the amount of the agency*s estimate for
the base work under the RFP. The KN proposal received a rating of
*adequate* experience. Under the management sub-subfactor, KN*s proposal
received a rating of *very good* (for exceeding requirements in providing
an innovative approach to cost control), which was higher than that
received by the Paradise proposal (rated as *acceptable* for meeting the
RFP*s requirements).
The agency determined that Paradise*s additional experience did not
outweigh the significant cost premium associated with that proposal
($4,310,167.05, approximately 41 percent of KN*s price). Having
determined that KN submitted the proposal that offered the best value to
the agency, the agency awarded a contract to KN.
Paradise challenges the agency*s evaluation of the awardee*s proposal in
three evaluation areas: past performance, management, and execution
risk. The protester contends that the agency failed to follow the RFP*s
evaluation terms and that the challenged favorable ratings received by
KN*s proposal are unsupported. The protester contends that the agency
should have decided that Paradise submitted the best value proposal in
light of its more substantial relevant experience, which the protester
asserts is worth its significantly higher price.
In reviewing a protest against an agency*s evaluation of proposals and
award, including tradeoff determinations, we examine the record to
determine whether the agency*s judgment was reasonable and consistent with
the solicitation*s evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and
regulations. Bella Vista Landscaping, Inc., B‑291310, Dec. 16,
2002, 2002 CPD P: 217 at 4. A protester*s mere disagreement with the
agency*s determinations as to the relative merit of competing proposals,
and its judgment as to which proposal offers the best value to the agency,
does not establish that the evaluation or source selection was
unreasonable. Id.; Weber Cafeteria Servs., Inc., B-290085.2, June 17,
2002, CPD P: 99 at 4. Our review of the record here provides no basis to
question the reasonableness of the agency*s evaluation or source
selection, which were consistent with the RFP*s evaluation terms.
The protester first contends that KN*s proposal did not deserve the
*exceptional* past performance rating it received. The protester, whose
proposal also received an *exceptional* past performance rating, does not
challenge the accuracy of the numerous highly favorable past performance
reference surveys for KN and its proposed subcontractor; those surveys
report performance consistently exceeding contract requirements to the
government*s benefit. Rather, Paradise argues that it was unreasonable to
give both KN and Paradise the same *exceptional* rating, in view of
Paradise*s greater experience. In this regard, the protester contends
that although the awardee and its proposed subcontractor have performed
grounds and tree maintenance contracts, only Paradise, the incumbent
contractor, has performed the RFP*s actual requirements. Paradise also
argues that its past contracts are larger (in terms of cost and
complexity) than those listed by KN. Contending that its past contracts
are more similar to the RFP*s requirements than KN*s contracts, Paradise
asserts that only its proposal should have been rated as *exceptional* for
past performance.
In response, the agency points out that the RFP required a determination
of the offeror*s capability to perform the current requirements relative
to the past performance surveys completed for *similar* work and that the
measure of similarity of work was to be based on the nature of the work
(i.e., grounds and tree maintenance services). The agency reports that
past performance references for work determined to be similar in nature
were then reviewed for the quality of services rendered. The agency
explains that its quantitative measure of similar experience, including
review of the degree of relevance of that work, was reflected in the
rating assigned under the RFP*s experience sub-subfactor. Specifically,
the agency reports that the difference in the level of the offerors*
relevant experience pointed to by Paradise is appropriately reflected in
the evaluation ratings assigned under this sub-subfactor, with Paradise
receiving a *substantial* experience rating, and KN receiving a rating of
*adequate* experience.
Our review of the record confirms that the comparative evaluation of the
degree of relevant experience between the two offerors is reflected in the
experience evaluation, consistent with the RFP*s evaluation scheme. While
the protester seeks to have its greater amount of more relevant experience
counted under the past performance rating as well, suggesting that only
its experience can justify a past performance rating of *exceptional*
here, our review of the RFP*s evaluation scheme and the evaluation record
does not support its view. Rather, under the solicitation*s evaluation
terms, once work was determined to be *similar,* an offeror was to receive
evaluation credit for that work based on both the extent of its relevance
(which was separately measured under the experience criterion), and on the
quality of the work provided (i.e., under the past performance criterion,
considering quality of service, schedule, cost control, business
relations, management of key personnel, and awards and certifications
received). Our review of the record confirms that the agency reasonably
determined that the grounds and tree maintenance work reported in the
awardee*s past performance surveys was sufficiently similar to the work
under the RFP, and reasonably reflected the smaller scope of the work in
its determination of KN*s rating of *adequate* experience. Our review of
the record also confirms the reasonableness of the *exceptional* past
performance rating given to KN*s proposal as it is based upon the highly
favorable survey references received for KN for consistently exceeding
many contractual requirements to the government*s benefit. As noted
above, Paradise does not challenge the quality of KN*s past work.
Consequently, the record provides no basis to question the reasonableness
of the agency*s evaluation under the RFP*s past performance/experience
subfactor, which properly reflected the assessment of both the quality of
past work and the magnitude of the offerors* experience.
Next, the protester argues that the agency*s evaluation of KN*s proposal
under the management sub-subfactor of the execution subfactor was
unreasonable. Paradise does not challenge its own rating of *acceptable*
in this evaluation area, but rather contends that KN*s proposal does not
warrant the *very good* management rating it received. We disagree. As
stated above, the RFP provided for evaluation of innovative cost control
measures and called for a *very good* management rating where the proposal
was found to exceed performance requirements to the agency*s benefit, and
where plans, approaches and analyses showed a good probability of success
in performance of the contract. KN was the only offeror found to have
proposed an innovative method to reduce costs in the option periods, and,
consistent with the RFP, received additional credit for its proposed cost
control efforts.
KN*s proposed cost control effort involved [deleted]. The protester does
not contend that [deleted] cannot reasonably reduce costs under the
contract. Paradise only argues that the anticipated savings are not
guaranteed because [deleted] have not been approved yet by the agency.
According to Paradise, the agency improperly gave the KN proposal
additional credit without having the firm demonstrate that cost savings
were guaranteed. Contrary to the protester*s suggestion, however, there
simply is no requirement in the RFP that cost savings from innovative
measures be guaranteed in order for an offeror to receive evaluation
credit for exceeding RFP requirements. We recognize, as Paradise argues,
that the agency failed to give evaluation credit for another one of KN*s
cost savings measures because the savings were not certain. In this
regard, KN had also proposed [deleted]. The agency did not assign any
additional credit for this proposal, recognizing that [deleted] might not
be granted and thus that the cost savings were not assured. The fact that
the agency decided not to give KN credit for this proposed cost saving
measure does not make unreasonable its decision to give KN credit for the
cost savings anticipated from the proposed [deleted]. As stated above,
the RFP did not require a guarantee of savings from the innovative
approach, and we think it was a reasonable exercise of discretion for the
agency to decide that the cost savings from [deleted] were too uncertain
to warrant extra credit, while the potential savings from [deleted] could
reasonably be anticipated, and so should be credited in the evaluation.
Lastly, Paradise contends that the agency*s assignment of *low* execution
risk to KN*s proposal was unreasonable. Specifically, Paradise notes that
KN*s proposal provided an extensive list of grounds maintenance equipment
and vehicles it intends to purchase after award to add to its current
equipment and vehicles for performance of the RFP*s requirements.
Paradise questions KN*s financial ability to acquire all of the new
equipment prior to the start of performance, and argues that the agency
should have given a less favorable execution risk rating to the KN
proposal on this basis, because during its pre-award survey of KN, the
agency learned that the firm had acceptable, but relatively limited
available funds.
The agency responds that its evaluation of financial capacity was related
to its determination of KN*s responsibility prior to award and was
performed after the technical evaluation process, which did not
contemplate review of financial ability. The record shows that the
evaluators considered KN*s current equipment and vehicles, its intended
additional acquisitions, as well as its subcontractor*s extensive
inventory of available equipment and vehicles in evaluating the awardee*s
approach and qualifications. The agency concluded that it had no reason
to believe KN*s performance would be disrupted due to limited equipment
availability or otherwise, resulting in the assessment of *low* execution
risk.
The RFP did not require all of the equipment and vehicles included in the
awardee*s desired acquisition list, nor was there any requirement for the
full list to be acquired prior to the start of performance. Further, the
protester does not challenge the agency*s consideration of the awardee*s
subcontractor*s substantial equipment and vehicle fleet in the evaluation
of the firm*s proposed execution of contract requirements, which, in our
view, also supports the reasonableness of the awardee*s *low* execution
risk rating. The protester*s speculation regarding KN*s acquisition of
additional equipment and vehicles and its disagreement with the evaluation
provide no reason to question the reasonableness of the agency*s
evaluation.
In sum, given the agency*s reasonable finding of strength in the awardee*s
technical proposal and its significantly lower price, we have no basis to
question the reasonableness s of the agency*s evaluation and tradeoff
determination, consistent with the RFP*s evaluation scheme, that
Paradise*s additional experience did not warrant payment of the
significant cost premium associated with Paradise*s proposal.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel