IMC and TLD received essentially equally technical ratings on a grounds maintenance contract where solicitation requirements stated experience would be evaluated for “similar dollar value and complexity” and awarded the contract to the lowest priced bid.  IMC, who protested the award, was rated “excellent” for past performance based on performance of a two-year grounds maintenance contract worth $2 million while TLD received a “very good” past performance rating where though it had only one mowing contract worth less than $300,000 it had identified 10 other contracts that were mostly more complex than grounds maintenance ranging in value between $140,000 and $3.2 million where its customers gave it “excellent” and “very good” ratings.  The Board rejected the protest saying TLD’s lesser experience in grounds maintenance was offset by its higher technical/management ratings and very good past performance on contracts of similar value and complexity.  It stated the Army did not abandon its past performance evaluation criteria explaining “mowing grass is not a difficult task…but the ability to manage a team of individuals in an organized fashion that results in standards being met in a timely manner requires good management, organizations and quality controls skills” (IMC, GAO B-291997).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}