TITLE: B-299816, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., August 9, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299816
DATE: August 9, 2007
****************************************************
B-299816, Beck's Spray Service, Inc., August 9, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Beck's Spray Service, Inc.

   File: B-299816

   Date: August 9, 2007

   Gregory M. Beck for the protester.

   Gregory C. Cox, for United Agri Products, an intervenor.

   Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., and Alton E. Woods, Esq., Department of the
   Interior, for the agency.

   Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Where solicitation gave offerors discretion in choosing equipment for
   aerial application of herbicide, agency reasonably downgraded protester's
   proposal for failure to propose aircraft deemed appropriate for project
   sites with rough terrain and eliminated it from the competitive range.

   DECISION

   Beck's Spray Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to UAP under
   request for proposals (RFP) No. NAR070059, issued by the Department of the
   Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for aerial spraying of
   herbicide. Beck's challenges the evaluation of its proposal and the source
   selection.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of an
   indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year, with 2
   option years. The successful offeror was to provide all labor,
   transportation, tools, and necessary equipment for aerial spraying of
   contractor-furnished herbicide on an estimated 5,000 acres of BLM lands.
   Proposals were required to address all RFP requirements and to include all
   information specifically required by each RFP section. Award was to be
   made on a "best value" basis, with proposals evaluated under two non-price
   factors--technical capabilities (50 points) and past performance (50
   points)--and price, with the non-price factors considered more important
   than price.

   Two firms, Beck's and UAP, submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a
   technical proposal evaluation committee (TPEC). The TPEC assigned Beck's
   proposal only 20 of the possible 100 points, the deductions being due to a
   finding that the proposal did not include adequate technical and past
   performance information; in particular, the agency found that the proposal
   failed to adequately address Beck's familiarity with the type of terrain,
   as evidenced by its proposal to use only fixed-wing aircraft. UAP's
   proposal received 90 points based on a finding that its proposed team was
   exceptionally skilled and experienced; that UAP was familiar with the
   spray area's conditions and rugged terrain; and based on the firm's
   submission of information on quality assurance and safety. UAP's price was
   approximately 20 percent higher than Beck's, but was lower than the
   government's estimate, and the agency found that it was reasonable. The
   contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), determined that
   Beck's evaluation score was so low that its proposal could not be
   considered within the competitive range, and concluded that UAP's proposal
   represented the best value to the government. After a debriefing, Beck's
   filed this protest.

   Beck's asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was flawed under the
   technical capability and past performance factors. In considering a
   protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is confined to
   determining whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the
   terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United
   Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10-11. The
   evaluation here was unobjectionable.

   TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

   Beck's asserts that the evaluation of its proposal under the technical
   capability factor was flawed primarily because the agency improperly
   downgraded its proposal for failing to offer rotary-wing aircraft
   (helicopters) for performance of the contract. In Beck's view, this
   represented an undisclosed evaluation consideration.

   This argument is without merit. The agency explains that Beck's proposal
   was downgraded--it received 10 of the 50 available points--for a number of
   weaknesses, only one of which was its failure to propose any use of
   helicopters. In this regard, the RFP notified offerors that some of the
   project sites were in very rugged terrain with deep drainages and steep
   slopes, RFP sect. C.1.4.1, and called for offerors to inspect the sites
   prior to submitting proposals. RFP sect. L, para. 52.237-1. The agency
   explains that its policy is not to specify the type of aircraft to be
   used, and the RFP clearly provided that the tools and equipment used for
   application of herbicides was at the contractor's discretion. RFP
   sect. C.5.1.2. The agency considered fixed-wing aircraft appropriate for
   some of the applications here, but believed that helicopters would be
   better suited to others. Beck's maintains that it can accomplish all of
   the work with fixed-wing aircraft, and that it thus was improper to
   downgrade its proposal for this reason. However, Beck's brief technical
   proposal--a cover letter and list of references--did not address in any
   detail the firm's experience or ability to make fixed-wing applications
   over all types of terrain to be encountered under the contract.

   Further, as noted by the agency, Beck's proposal was downgraded for a
   variety of weaknesses--not just the failure to propose the use of
   helicopters--including its overall lack of detailed information. The RFP
   required offerors to provide evidence of their ability to perform the
   project, cautioning them that sufficient information had to be presented
   to enable the agency to evaluate the firms' qualifications. RFP
   sections L.1.1, L.1.2. In this regard, it called for offerors to submit
   resumes that included a narrative description of the offeror's noxious
   weed control background, experience and performance on its three most
   recent jobs, and related work experience. RFP sect. L.2.3. While Beck's
   proposal identified, for example, experience with various noxious weeds,
   it included no resumes or other narrative describing Beck's noxious weed
   control background. Likewise, while the proposal stated that Beck's pilot
   was qualified to read maps, and proposed to use the global positioning
   system (GPS)--as required by RFP sect. C.3.6--it included no information
   explaining how its GPS would translate ground information or who would
   operate it.

   We find nothing unreasonable in the agency's conclusion that applications
   by helicopter may be necessary under the contract--and its downgrading of
   Beck's proposal accordingly. Likewise, since Beck's did not address other
   areas of the RFP in its limited proposal, there is no basis for us to
   object to the agency's downgrading the proposal on that basis under the
   technical capabilities factor.[1] An offeror has the burden of submitting
   an adequately written proposal and runs the risk that its proposal will be
   evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do so. Carlson Wagonlit Travel,
   B-287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at 3, 6.

   In fact, here, the agency eliminated Beck's proposal from the competitive
   range. Agency Report, Tab 10, Negotiation Memorandum. Contracting agencies
   are not required to retain a proposal in a competitive range where the
   agency reasonably concludes that the proposal has no realistic prospect of
   award. Federal Acquisition Regulation sect. 15.306(c)(1); SDS Petroleum
   Prods., Inc., B-280430, Sept. 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 59 at 5-6. As
   discussed above, the evaluators found deficiencies and inadequacies in
   Beck's brief technical proposal. In our view, based on this evaluation,
   the agency reasonably concluded that the protester had no realistic
   possibility of receiving the award.

   PAST PERFORMANCE

   Offerors were required to submit past performance reference information on
   comparable contracts that they had completed, including the name of the
   contract, the issuing entity or agency, contact information, and dates of
   performance. RFP sect. L.2.4. Based on this information, the TPEC was to
   determine whether the references and reputation of the company showed the
   quality of work necessary to successfully complete the contract and
   whether task orders were completed within performance times. RFP
   sect. M.2.2. Beck's asserts that the agency improperly failed to contact
   its submitted references in evaluating its past performance, and disputes
   the accuracy of the informal information relied upon instead by two of the
   evaluators.

   We need not reach this issue since, even if we agreed that the past
   performance evaluation was flawed, it does not appear that Beck's was
   prejudiced. See McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD
   para. 54 at 3 (GAO will not sustain a protest unless the protester
   demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the
   agency's actions); see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577,
   1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In light of Beck's low technical capabilities
   score, and significant deficiencies, the record shows that any improvement
   in its past performance rating would not have affected the agency's
   competitive range determination. In this regard, even if Beck's received
   all 50 points for past performance, its technical capability score would
   remain 40 points lower than UAP's and its combined score 30 points lower.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger

   General Counsel

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

   [1] Our conclusion is not changed by the fact that one of the evaluators
   incorrectly noted that Beck's proposal did not list any license
   information. While Beck's asserts that this could have impacted its
   technical score, we find no evidence that it did so. In this regard, this
   weakness is identified only on the evaluator's own worksheet; it was not
   listed on the consensus evaluation, the TPEC award recommendation, or the
   source selection document. Moreover, the evaluator states that removal of
   this weakness from his worksheet would not change the final scoring of
   Beck's proposal. Natural Resource Specialist Declaration para. 6.