United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: John Blood 

File: B-402133 

Date: January 15, 2010 

John Blood for the protester. 

Elin M. Dugan, Esq., Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the agency. 

Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest of evaluation of protester’s quotation, and selection of higher-priced, higher 

technically rated quotation, is denied where evaluation and selection were 

reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation evaluation criteria. 

DECISION 

John Blood, of Flagstaff, Arizona, protests the evaluation of his quotation and the 

selection of the higher-priced, higher technically rated quotation submitted by Lara 

Brothers, Ltd., of Castle Rock, Washington, under request for quotations (RFQ) 

No. AG-0276-S-09-0032, issued by the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for 

tree thinning services in Clearwater National Forest.1

We deny the protest. 

The RFQ, issued on August 3, 2009 (as a small business set-aside, commercial item 

procurement under simplified acquisition procedures), sought price and technical 

quotations for the tree thinning services. The source selection, considering technical 

and price factors (where technical factors combined were to be approximately equal 

in importance to price), was to be based on the technically acceptable quotation that 

presented the technical/price relationship considered most advantageous to the 

government. RFQ at 45. The RFQ set out three technical evaluation factors, each 

 

1

 The objective of the tree thinning work is to improve forest health and yield 

capability by removing certain undesirable trees and retaining other trees. 
with a list of identified subfactors for which vendors were to provide specific 

information for evaluation; vendors were specifically instructed that quotations 

would not be considered without the requisite information for evaluation. Id. Under 

the qualifications and experience factor, vendors were to demonstrate the ability to 

perform by, among other things, identifying key personnel and their experience with 

similar work, including identifying tree species, recognizing tree diseases (especially 

white pine blister rust), understanding crown class structure, thinning trees using 

variable spacing, and achieving the production rates required by the RFQ. Id. For 

the evaluation of past performance, vendors were required to list “all” (emphasis in 

original) tree thinning and similar contracts awarded them in the past 3 years, 

including details regarding the size and location of the work, thinning quality 

achieved, key personnel and contracting officer involved, and, if problems were 

encountered, what corrective actions were taken. Id. Under the work plan and 

production schedule factor, vendors were to describe the workforce to be provided 

and the equipment to be used, including the number of crews, crew size, production 

rates to be achieved, and estimated starting and completion dates, demonstrating the 

ability to timely complete the work. Id. Prices were to be evaluated for 

reasonableness. Id. Vendors were advised of the importance of their initial 

quotation submissions, since selection was to be made upon initial quotations, 

without the opportunity for negotiations or revisions. Id. at 46. 

Twelve quotations were received by the August 28 closing date. John Blood’s 

quotation, the lowest priced (at $57,990), was evaluated as marginal technically with 

high performance risk due to a material lack of information; the evaluators noted, for 

example, that for the qualifications and experience factor, the quotation lacked a 

substantial amount of information required by the RFQ to demonstrate the vendor’s 

knowledge of tree species, diseases, damaging agents, and variable spacing. The 

agency found the protester’s past performance acceptable despite the protester’s 

failure to discuss key personnel and thinning quality achieved, as required, since a 

past performance reference reported acceptable performance by the protester of 

thinning work in a different region; the contracting officer reports, however, that 

there was some concern in terms of performance risk because the protester’s 

quotation failed to identify or explain a recent termination for convenience of a 

thinning contract following a claim for equitable adjustment in price. Under the 

work plan and schedule factor, the quotation was found to lack required information 

about the equipment to be used and the estimated dates of performance. Given the 

substantial omissions of required evaluation information, the quotation was rated as 

marginal with high performance risk. 

Lara Brothers, which submitted the next low price ($73,530), was found to have 

submitted a detailed technical quotation providing the information required for each 

evaluation factor to demonstrate its qualifications and substantial experience, 

successful performance of similar work, and a strong work plan and schedule of 

performance; the quotation was found technically acceptable (the highest rating 

available) with low performance risk. Determining that the lower performance risk 

associated with Lara Brothers’ quotation was worth the $15,000 cost premium 

Page 2 B-402133 
Page 3 B-402133 

associated with it, the contracting officer selected that firm to do the work. The 

agency provided John Blood with a summary of the bases of the evaluation of his 

quotation and the source selection; this protest followed. 

In reviewing a protest against the propriety of an evaluation, it is not our function to 

independently evaluate proposals and substitute our judgment for that of the 

contracting activity. Barents Group, L.L.C., B-276082, B-276082.2, May 9, 1997, 97-1 

CPD ¶ 164 at 6. Rather, we will review an evaluation to ensure that it was 

reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and 

applicable procurement statutes and regulations; a protester’s mere disagreement 

with the evaluation does not show it lacked a reasonable basis. Id. On the record 

here, we see no basis to question the evaluation of the protester’s quotation or the 

source selection decision. 

The RFQ expressly required technical submissions from each vendor demonstrating 

the ability to perform based on the vendor’s qualifications, experience, past 

performance, and work plan and schedule information. The record shows that a 

substantial amount of required information was not submitted by John Blood; the 

protester does not refute the agency’s item-by-item list of missing information in his 

quotation. Rather, the protester generally contends the agency should have 

concluded that his ability to perform was demonstrated by this quotation’s reference 

to 30 years of thinning experience, and because the protester allegedly showed an 

understanding of the requirements in speaking with agency personnel about the 

work prior to submitting a quotation. 

A vendor is responsible for demonstrating affirmatively the merits of its quotation 

and risks rejection if it fails to do so. See HDL Research Lab, Inc., B-294959, Dec. 21, 

2004, 2005 CPD ¶ 8 at 5. Further, no matter how competent a vendor may be, the 

technical evaluation must be based on information included in the firm’s quotation. 

See Watson Indus., Inc., B-238309, Apr. 5, 1990, 90-1 CPD ¶ 371 at 3-4. Since the RFQ 

here required the vendors to include specific technical information for evaluation, 

we consider reasonable the agency’s determination that the protester’s failure to 

submit the information rendered its quotation technically marginal, at best, and 

presented substantial performance risk. Given these agency findings, we have no 

basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s selection of the higher-priced, 

but technically superior, lower risk quotation from Lara Brothers. 

 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel