TITLE:  Dew Drop Sprinklers & Landscaping, B-293963, July 15, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-293963
DATE:  July 15, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Dew Drop Sprinklers & Landscaping

   File:            B-293963

   Date:              July 15, 2004

   Lawrence H. Vance, Jr., Esq., Winston & Cashatt, for the protester.

   Marion T. Cordova, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably determined that higher-priced quotation offered the best
value where the awardee had more relevant experience than the protester
and the protester failed to provide such required information as a safety
plan.

   DECISION

   Dew Drop Sprinklers & Landscaping protests the issuance of a purchase
order to TML Construction, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
R1-04-04-04, issued by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, for water system improvements.  Dew Drop challenges the agency's
decision to award to TML at a higher price.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ, issued on October 9, 2003 under the simplified acquisition
procedures prescribed in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13,
contemplated award of a fixed-price order to relocate three existing
Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventor[s]* from underground vaults to above
ground, heated enclosures at the Coeur d'Alene Nursery, Idaho Panhandle
National Forest, Idaho.  The RFQ included detailed project drawings and,
in addition, encouraged vendors to undertake a site visit.  RFQ S J-3. 
Award was to be made on the basis of the quotation representing the best
overall value* considering past performance, experience, technical ability
to meet the requirements, including Contractor's safety measures in place
and identified in the offer,* and price.  RFQ, Standard Form 18.

   Vendors were directed to complete and return with their quotation a
questionnaire that requested information regarding the number of years of
contracting experience and the projects completed within the last 3 years,
including contract references.  In addition, the questionnaire required
vendors to describe their safety measures and procedures, specifically
addressing:  (1) how safety for employees and the public is ensured;
(2)A transportation safety to and from work; and (3) first aid and
evacuation plans in the event of illness or injury.  The experience
questionnaire also required vendors to describe the staffing and equipment
to be used on the project, and the anticipated schedule of progress. 
Vendors were further directed to furnish a completed Idaho certificate of
worker's compensation insurance, which required the vendor to identify all
subcontractors assisting with performance of the work.  RFQ SS J-4, J-5.

   Seven quotations were received by the closing time on October 31.  Due to
funding constraints, the procurement was delayed until March 2004, which
prompted the Forest Service to ask the vendors to confirm their previously
submitted quotations. Four vendors, including Dew Drop and TML, responded
by either confirming or revising their prices.  Dew Drop quoted a revised
price of $50,527; TML confirmed a previously quoted price of $72,855.[1]

   The record indicates that the Forest Service found Dew Drop's quotation to
be less advantageous than TML's under the non-price evaluation factors. 
The Forest Service found that while Dew Drop possessed some experience in
pipe fitting, it primarily specialized in sprinklers and landscape
projects and had only limited experience with the type of water system
improvement project that was the subject of the solicitation.  Thus, one
reference reported that Dew Drop had done good work in providing
landscaping, while a second reference indicated that he was pleased with
Dew Drop's work under a contract for playfield sod and landscaping,
including irrigation.  A third reference indicated that Dew Drop had done
good work in installing a high voltage power line, while a fourth
reference referred to a habitat project for the Corps of Engineers but
provided only minimal detail on the work. 

   In contrast, the Forest Service found that TML's experience, for which the
agency received high ratings from the references, most precisely matched*
the work required under the contract.  Award Statement at 3. 
Specifically, the agency learned from a reference that TML had done a very
good job* in performing a very similar water system improvement project,
including changing a pump and working on a remote lift station, two
domestic wells and pumps.  Id.  On another contract, a local water
district reported that it was more than satisfied* with the work TML had
done in building a booster pump station with plumbing and electronics. 
Id.  On a third contract, TML completed a well and filtration building
project.  On a fourth contract, TML installed two well houses, connected
piping to a water system, installed large pressure reducing and pressure
sustaining valves, and upgraded the waste water system.  The reference
contacted by the agency for this project advised that TML was one of the
best contractors he'd ever worked with.*  Id. 

   In addition, the Forest Service noted that Dew Drop had not responded to
the requirement to describe its safety procedures, instead stating that
the Company Safety Programa**a**Manual [is] available on request,* and did
not identify the subcontractors it planned to use on the project, as
required by the Idaho certificate of worker's compensation insurance.  In
contrast, the Forest Service found that TML's quotation included all of
the requested information, including a safety plan, a detailed work
schedule, and the identity of TML's subcontractor.

   In making her price/technical tradeoff determination, the contracting
officer noted the critical nature of the required work.  Specifically, the
contracting officer noted that the nursery water system serves greenhouses
that house approximately fourA million tree seedlings; according to the
contracting officer, near lethal temperatures for the seedlings could
result within approximately 1 hour of an interruption in the water
supply.  In addition, the contracting officer noted that the project
requires work to be done between high-pressure interstate gas and
petroleum pipelines.  The contracting officer concluded that, given the
critical nature of the required work, the advantages of TML's quotation,
including TML's proven expertise in this type of work, and the fact that
TML, unlike Dew Drop, had furnished such required information as a safety
plan, warranted payment of TML's higher price.  Upon learning of the
resulting award to TML, Dew Drop filed this protest with our Office.

   Dew Drop protests that the agency improperly utilized experience to
discriminate between the two proposals, while ignoring price in
determining the best value.  According to the protester, the project to be
performed here was a simple* project, and the fact that the solicitation
was issued under simplified acquisition procedures belies the agency's
contention that technical evaluation factors were important and somehow
justify spending additional taxpayer money.*  Dew Drop Comments at 2.  

   When using simplified acquisition 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 against an allegedly improper
simplified 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.

   We find the source selection to be reasonable and in accordance with the
terms of the solicitation.  Although Dew Drop asserts that it was improper
for the agency to consider the relative experience of the two offerors as
a discriminator, the RFQ specifically stated that the agency would
evaluate experience, along with past performance, technical ability to
meet the requirements and price, and make award to the vendor whose
quotation provided the best value after considering these factors. 
Further, while Dew Drop challenges the agency's position that the
technical evaluation factors were important, arguing that the project was
only a simple one, we note that the RFQ did not make price more
significant than the technical factors.  On the contrary, the RFQ did not
specify the relative importance of the individual evaluation factors and,
in the absence of any indication in the RFQ of the relative importance
among the individual evaluation factors, they are presumed to be of equal
importance.  See Hyperbaric Techs., Inc., Ba**293047.2; B-293047.3,
Feb.A 11, 2004, 2004 CPD P 87 at 4; Maryland Office Relocators, B-291092,
Nov. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD PA 198 at 5.

   Agency officials have broad discretion in determining the manner and
extent to which they will make use of the technical and cost evaluation
results.  Price/technical tradeoffs may be made, and the extent to which
one is sacrificed for the other is governed by the test of rationality and
consistency with the established factors.  See Structural Preservation
Sys., Inc., B-285085, July 14, 2000, 2000 CPD PA 131 at 7.  An agency may
properly select a more highly rated quotation over one offering a lower
price where it has reasonably determined that the technical superiority
outweighs the price difference.  See Sawtooth Enters., Inc., supra.,
atA 4. 

   As explained above, the contracting officer determined that TML's
non-price advantages warranted payment of that firm's higher price.  Dew
Drop has furnished no basis for our Office to question this determination.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The government estimate for the project was $60,819.