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.