TITLE: B-310617, Superior Landscaping Company, Inc., January 15, 2008
BNUMBER: B-310617
DATE: January 15, 2008
**************************************************************
B-310617, Superior Landscaping Company, Inc., January 15, 2008
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
Decision
Matter of: Superior Landscaping Company, Inc.
File: B-310617
Date: January 15, 2008
Michael A. Gordon, Esq., and Fran Baskin, Esq., Holmes & Gordon, for the
protester.
Andrew E. Mishkin, Esq., Tamara M. McNulty, Esq., and Daniel E. Toomey,
Esq., Duane Morris LLP, for The Davey Tree Expert Company, an intervenor.
LTC James A. Lewis, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency's evaluation of protester's technical proposal is unobjectionable
where the record established that the evaluation is reasonable and
consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; protester's mere
disagreement with the agency's evaluation does not render the evaluation
unreasonable.
DECISION
Superior Landscaping Company, Inc. protests the award of a contract to The
Davey Tree Expert Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No.
W91WAW-07-R-0022, issued by the Department of the Army for grounds
maintenance services at the Arlington National Cemetery. The protester
principally contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal
as marginal under the technical capability evaluation factor.
We deny the protest.
BACKGROUND
The RFP was issued on June 8, 2007, for grounds maintenance services at
Arlington National Cemetery. The RFP provided for the award of an
indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and
labor-hour task orders for a period of 12 months with four 12-month
options. This RFP replaced a previous solicitation that resulted in an
award to Davey Tree that was subsequently terminated for convenience in
response to an earlier protest filed by Superior.
The RFP provided that the award would be made to the best overall proposal
considering the following evaluation factors: technical capability, past
performance, small business participation plan and price. RFP sect. M.1.
The RFP further provided that in order to receive consideration for award,
a rating of no less than "acceptable" must be achieved for the technical
capability and past performance evaluation factors. The technical
capability evaluation factor consisted of the following four equally
weighted subfactors: relevant experience, key personnel experience,
operational procedures to accomplish requirements and quality control
plan. RFP sect. M.2. The RFP also informed offerors that the government
intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.
In recognition of certain unique requirements associated with maintaining
the grounds at Arlington National Cemetery, the RFP explained that:
Arlington National Cemetery is our nation's most sacred shrine and the
final resting place for our most revered military and political leaders.
Arlington Cemetery receives four to six million visitors per year -
including visits from the President of the United States, other heads of
state, family members of the deceased, and millions of tourists from
around the world. Approximately 6,000 funerals are conducted yearly - in
addition to over 2,000 other ceremonies, such as commemorations, wreath
ceremonies, and head-of-state visits. These ceremonies and funerals
often receive the intense focus of the press and other media. Because of
Arlington's special significance and the attention it receives, strict
adherence to these specifications is essential. Failure to meet
specifications will have a negative impact on our nation's image and
will not be tolerated. The successful contractor forms a true
partnership with the federal government to ensure those who served our
nation are properly honored.
RFP sect. C.1.2.
Seven proposals were received, including those from Superior and Davey
Tree, by the closing date for receipt of proposals.[1] The proposals were
subsequently evaluated by the evaluation team which provided its
recommendations to the source selection authority (SSA). Only Davey Tree
and another offeror were rated "acceptable" or higher in the technical
capability evaluation factor. Superior's overall technical rating of
marginal was comprised of three marginal ratings on technical subfactors,
and one rating of acceptable, as set forth below:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Overall Technical Rating | Marginal |
|--------------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|a. relevant experience | Acceptable |
|--------------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|b. key personnel experience | Marginal |
|--------------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|c. operational procedures | Marginal |
|--------------------------------------------+---------------------------|
|d. quality control plan | Marginal |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Superior received an overall rating of marginal for the technical
capability evaluation factor because the agency concluded that Superior's
key personnel lacked relevant experience, that the company's proposed
operational procedures did not indicate understanding of the scope of
work, and that the proposed quality control plan was inadequate. Id. at
15.
The evaluation results for all of the proposals were as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Overall |Past Performance/|Small Business Plan| Total |
| | | | | |
| |Technical Rating| Risk | | Price |
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Davey | Excellent | Excellent/Low | Acceptable | $11.7 |
| | | Risk | |million|
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Offeror A| Acceptable | Good/ | Marginal | $13.3 |
| | | | |million|
| | | Moderate Risk | | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Offerors below this line were considered ineligible for award |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Offeror B| Marginal | Good/ | Good | $12.6 |
| | | | |million|
| | | Moderate Risk | | |
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Offeror C| Marginal | Marginal/ | Good | $11.3 |
| | | | |million|
| | | High Risk | | |
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Superior | Marginal | Acceptable/ | Marginal | $10.8 |
| | | | |million|
| | | Low Risk | | |
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Offeror D| Unacceptable | Marginal/ | Good | $12.4 |
| | | | |million|
| | | Moderate Risk | | |
|---------+----------------+-----------------+-------------------+-------|
|Offeror E| Unacceptable | Unacceptable/ | Unacceptable | $11.1 |
| | | | |million|
| | | High Risk | | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Agency Report (AR), Tab 15, Source Selection Decision at 4.
Upon completion of the evaluation, the SSA determined that the Davey Tree
proposal represented the best value to the government since it was the
highest rated of the two technically acceptable proposals and had the
lower price. Id. at 27. Award was made to Davey Tree and this protest
followed.
DISCUSSION
The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was
unreasonable and contends that one of the evaluators acted in bad faith
throughout the procurement demonstrating favoritism toward the incumbent
awardee, and bias toward the protester. While the protester objects to the
agency's evaluation of its proposal under all evaluation factors, we note
that offerors were required to achieve at least a rating of acceptable
under the technical capability evaluation factor to be eligible for award.
Thus, our decision will focus on the reasonableness of the agency's
assessments under this evaluation factor, and in particular, on the
assessments under the three technical subfactors under which the proposal
was rated marginal--as it was these ratings that ultimately excluded
Superior's proposal from the tradeoff process.
As a preliminary matter, we note that Superior's contentions regarding
agency bias, are woven into all its challenges. Although the protester
provides no specific evidence of bad faith, it asserts that contracting
officials had no intention of awarding to anyone but Davey Tree and would
take whatever steps necessary to prevent awarding the contract to
Superior. In our view, government officials are presumed to act in good
faith and a protester's claim that contracting officials were motivated by
bias or bad faith must be supported by convincing proof; our Office will
not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to procurement officials on
the basis of inference or supposition. Shinwa Elecs., B-290603 et al.,
Sept. 3, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 154 at 5 n.6.
In addition, our review of this record, including the detailed evaluation
here, shows no evidence that any government official attempted to
improperly manipulate the results of this competition. To the extent the
protester contends that the agency's decision to re-issue this RFP on a
best value award basis--as opposed to the previous approach that
contemplated award to the lowest-priced, technically-acceptable
offeror--was a ruse to avoid awarding to Superior, it should have raised
its objections prior to the closing time for receipt of proposals. Bid
Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.1(a)(1) (2007).
Key Personnel Experience
The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the extent to which
proposed key personnel had the qualifications, experience, operational
knowledge, and skill to successfully accomplish the stated requirements,
consistent with their proposed role in the offeror's management plan. RFP
sect. M.3.b.
Superior submitted resumes for two key personnel--a project manager and a
quality control manager. In its evaluation, the agency noted that
Superior's project manager's resume indicated that he had several years of
experience as a project manager for "all phases of grounds maintenance"
starting in 1997 but the resume contained no details concerning the actual
duties performed by the individual during that time. AR, Tab 12, Source
Selection Consensus Report, at 11. Moreover, the agency found that the
most recent experience of Superior's project manager centered on sports
field management from 2003 to the present, which the agency considered of
limited relevance to maintenance of the cemetery grounds at Arlington. The
agency also noted that Superior's proposed quality control manager
appeared to have limited experience in quality control and that neither
the resume, nor the proposal, provided information or details on projects
or sites where she might have actually performed quality control work. Id.
Superior disagrees with the marginal rating it received under the key
personnel subfactor. It contends that the agency misread its proposal, and
argues that its project manager's experience for the past 4 years was not
limited to sports fields--as it had been before that time--but included
serving as the project manager of Superior's grounds maintenance contract
at the United States Naval Academy.
Our review of the resume at issue shows that the resume, on its face,
describes Superior's project manager as "Project/Sports Turf Manager" from
2005 to 2006 at the Naval Academy; from 2003 to 2004 his position was
described as "sports field manager." Superior Proposal at 41. The only
detail provided concerning his position was that he "[m]anage[d] all
phases of the Grounds Maintenance Contract and sports fields" at the Naval
Academy, and the representation that the work "includes large amounts of
fill and sod work for field maintenance similar to grave maintenance
defined by the ANC [Arlington National Cemetery] solicitation." Id. In
short, this resume clearly highlights the project manager's experience
with sports field maintenance, and gives few details concerning any
experience performing any other type of ground maintenance work. Given the
lack of detail provided in Superior's proposal concerning its project
manager's actual experience, we cannot conclude that the assessment of his
experience was unreasonable.
With respect to the proposed quality control manager, the record shows
that Superior provided almost no details concerning the experience of this
individual to serve in this key role. In its comments on the agency
report, Superior acknowledges that it did not identify its quality control
manager's specific projects, but argues that there was no requirement in
the RFP for such details. Instead, Superior argues that her education in
landscape architecture, experience working with plants of all types, and
experience in working for Superior in quality control for the previous 2
years showed her ability to perform the job.
We disagree. An offeror has the responsibility to submit a well-written
proposal, with adequately detailed information, which clearly demonstrates
compliance with the solicitation requirements and allows a meaningful
review by the procuring agency. CACI Techs., Inc., B-296946, Oct. 27,
2005, 2005 CPD para. 198 at 5. In this regard, an offeror must
affirmatively demonstrate the merits of its proposal and risks the
rejection of its proposal if it fails to do. HDL Research Lab, Inc.,
B-294959, Dec. 21, 2004, 2005 CPD para. 8 at 5.
Superior's quality control manager's resume indicated that in 2 years of
employment at Superior she held positions described as "Quality Control
Evaluator and Reporter, Landscape Estimator and Manager, [and] Pestide
Control Applicator." Superior's Proposal at 51. The resume says nothing
about whether she held these positions serially, or all at the same time.
During the same timeframe, the resume showed that she was also an owner
and part time worker at another facility, thus rendering unclear the
extent of her quality control experience during the previous two years.
Given the lack of detail provided by Superior to demonstrate that its
proposed key personnel had relevant experience, we see nothing
unreasonable in Superior's rating of marginal under the key personnel
experience evaluation subfactor.
Operating Procedures to Accomplish Requirements
Under the Operating Procedures subfactor, the RFP stated that the agency
would evaluate the extent to which offerors demonstrate a thorough
understanding of the tasks and effort required to perform the statement of
work. Offerors were to provide a detailed management plan showing their
ability to plan, manage, and perform the work at the high standards
required for Arlington National Cemetery. Offerors were to be evaluated in
regard to quality of workmanship, staffing plan, scheduling capabilities,
inventory of existing equipment, as well as the methods and logistics
associated with getting the needed materials and equipment to the work
site. RFP sect. M.3.c.
The evaluators rated Superior's proposal marginal under this subfactor
primarily because they concluded that the proposal lacked detail regarding
the methods and procedures the company would use for reporting to the
government's representative each day, scheduling, and working around the
many funerals and ceremonies at Arlington. In addition, the evaluators
concluded that Superior, for the most part, merely "parroted" back the
RFP's requirements. AR, Tab 12, Source Selection Consensus Report, at 12.
The evaluators also found that Superior's proposed equipment was
inadequate for successful performance. Id.
Superior argues that in evaluating its proposal under the operational
procedures subfactor, the agency used unstated criteria to unduly favor
the incumbent. Specifically, Superior argues that unless an offeror
detailed all the equipment and personnel needed to perform every task, it
received a rating of marginal. Superior also generally disagrees that its
proposed equipment was inadequate.
Again, our review of the proposals and the evaluation record here lead us
to conclude that it was incumbent upon Superior to provide all the
information necessary to demonstrate its ability to manage and perform
these requirements. Instead, Superior failed to provide a detailed plan of
operation for maintaining the grounds at Arlington National Cemetery. As a
result, the agency could not be sure Superior had a clear understanding of
the requirement. While Superior disagrees with the evaluators'
determination that its equipment was either inadequate or not appropriate
in size, Superior was required to demonstrate how it would successfully
perform with its proposed equipment and failed to do so. Superior's
disagreement does not make the agency's determination unreasonable.
Quality Control Plan
Under the third subfactor for which Superior was rated marginal, quality
control plan, the RFP provided that the agency would look for a concept
for organizing, managing, performing, reviewing, and delivering products
and services that meets the requirements here. RFP sect. M.3.d. The RFP
stated that the quality control plan should have sufficient checks and
balances, and internal and external reviews, to assure that the contractor
can consistently provide support, including sub-contractor services, that
are accurate, complete and timely. Id.
The evaluators found that Superior failed to propose a complete quality
control plan in that Superior failed to provide the forms, processes or
feedback systems as promised in their outline of the plan. AR, Tab 12,
Source Selection Consensus Report, at 12. Additionally, the evaluators
found that the identification and prevention of defects were not found in
any portion of the protester's narrative addressing its plan, nor were
there checklists, or checklist examples, tailored to monitoring the
quality of performance here. Instead, the evaluators concluded that
Superior's plan was simply a narrative of operational procedures, with
little or no reference to ensuring performance. Id.
While Superior generally disagrees with the criticism of its quality
control plan, the record does not support its assertions. In our view, the
agency reasonably determined that Superior's quality control plan was
incomplete and failed to provide details--even details about the features
of the plan as outlined by Superior. In this regard, Superior outlines
five areas of its quality control plan: quality control program and
structure; identification and prevention of defective service; description
of records, forms, and actions taken; customer complaint feedback system;
and maintenance of quality records. AR, Tab 10, Superior's Proposal, at
33. However, Superior failed to provide the details of its plan as
outlined. For example, Superior did not provide the forms or any details
concerning its customer complaint feedback system or its maintenance of
quality records. While Superior maintains that the RFP did not require
offerors to provide forms, and contends that the absence of forms was due
to a page limitation imposed on proposals, we think the agency reasonably
concluded that the company's written proposal was inadequate due to its
lack of detail. See, Quality Elevator Co., Inc., B-271899, Aug. 28, 1996,
96-2 CPD para. 89 at 6.
Finally, to the extent that Superior raises certain challenges to the
evaluation of the awardee's proposal, we do not reach those arguments.
Since the record demonstrates that Superior's proposal was properly rated
marginal for technical capability and is therefore ineligible for award,
and since there is another technically acceptable firm besides the awardee
eligible for award, Superior is not an interested party to raise
challenges to the evaluation of the awardee's proposal. 4 C.F.R.
sect. 21.1(a) (2007). TRS Research, B-283342, Nov. 4, 1999, 99-2 CPD para.
85 at 4.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] To maintain anonymity during the evaluation process, offerors were
instructed to contact the contract specialist to obtain an offeror code to
be used throughout the proposal in lieu of the company name. RFP sect.
L.5.