Link: GAO Decision
Protestor: Landscapes Inc.
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest Denied.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
GAO Digest:
Protest is denied where protester’s proposal was reasonably evaluated as unacceptable under experience evaluation factor.
General Counsel PC Highlight:
Landscapes Inc. protested the award to Davis Contracting of a contract for various maintenance services at facilities in Big Hill and Elk City, Kansas. Offerors were required to provide a minimum of at least two “experience records” demonstrating experience of the offeror and proposed subcontractors with regard to the specific categories of services set forth in the SOW. The experience had to be of similar or like work of equal or greater magnitude of the scope of work for this requirement to be acceptable. The agency found Landscapes’ revised proposal to be unacceptable due to its failure to include two acceptable experience records under the park cleaning category.
The GAO found the agency’s evaluation of Landscapes’ proposal to be reasonable. It found unpersuasive Landscapes’ argument that its Chapel Ridge experience, which consisted of janitorial work, satisfied the park cleaning requirement because both janitorial work and park cleaning fall under the same NAICS code. The GAO pointed out that the solicitation placed janitorial work and park cleaning in separate categories of services, and defined the services in materially different ways. The GAO also found nothing unreasonable in the agency’s determination that the Chapel Hill interior building maintenance experience involved a materially lesser magnitude of work.
Offerors bear the burden of submitting proposals that comply with all terms of the RFP. Where the solicitation requires that offerors submit a certain number of past performance or experience references, offerors should focus on submitting references that fully satisfy the criteria in the solicitation. Contracts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity provide the greatest comparison for contracting officers when making their past performance evaluations. Failure to provide contracts similar in scope may result in a determination of unacceptability.