Government of the District of Columbia
DC Department of Public Works

Testimony of
William O. Howland Jr.
Director

“Contract DCKT-2010-CA-0210 with Lorenz Lawn and Landscaping, Inc.; Contract DCKT-2010-CB-0210 with Community Bridge, Inc.; and Contract DCHA-2007-C-0002 with Community Bridge, Inc.”

Committee on the Environment, Public Works and Transportation
Mary Cheh, Chair

Committee on Government Operations
Muriel Bowser, Chair

Committee on Small and Local Business Development
Vincent Orange, Chair

John A. Wilson Building
Room 412
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
October 7, 2011

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM O. HOWLAND, JR., DIRECTOR
ON “CONTRACT DCKT-2010-CA-0210 WITH LORENZ LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; CONTRACT DCKT-2010-CB-0210 WITH COMMUNITY BRIDGE, INC.; AND CONTRACT DCHA-2007-C-0002 WITH COMMUNITY BRIDGE, INC.”
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEES ON THE ENVIRONMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION; GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS; AND SMALL AND LOCAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2011/11 AM

• Good morning, Chairpersons Cheh, Bowser and Orange. I am William O. Howland, Jr., Director of the Department of Public Works. I am here today to present testimony about procuring services provided by Contract DCKT-2010-CA-0210 with Lorenz Lawn and Landscaping, Inc.; Contract DCKT-2010-CB-0210 with Community Bridge, Inc.; and Contract DCHA-2007-C-0002 with Community Bridge, Inc.”

• In 2009, the Office of the City Administrator requested the Office of Contracting and Procurement move forward with an open market bid for mowing services to consolidate the landscaping requirements for the District in an effort to achieve economies of scale and consistent quality of service. The intent was to combine the requirements of agencies that contracted for landscaping services. Those agencies included the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization and the Departments of Real Estate Services, Mental Health, Transportation, Youth Rehabilitation Services, and Parks and Recreation.

• It was determined that given the Department of Public Works’ experience in landscaping and ground maintenance, that they would serve as the lead agency for the purposes of management and issue resolution. As the lead agency, DPW coordinated the process that led to the development of a common scope of work that would be effective for all agencies. The solicitation that was issued was the result of that collaborative effort. DPW does not utilize the services of the contractors, but continues to use its in-house resources to provide landscaping services for the locations for which DPW is responsible.

• Solicitation DCKT-2009-R-0120 for landscaping was issued on September 23, 2009. The solicitation included the following Service Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS):

1. Routine Services – mowing, edging, trash removal
2. Non-routine Services (ordered on an as needed basis) – weed control, fertilization, core aeration, seeding, pruning, flower/rock bed maintenance, leaf removal, mulching, sod repair, snow/ice removal.

• October 27, 2010 was the closing date for the solicitation. Ten proposals were received. Three of those were from CBEs. Proposals that did not follow the solicitation instructions for submission of complete pricing proposals were rejected and not considered. For Wards 3, 4, 6, and 8, only 1 CBE was considered. The two other CBEs that submitted proposals did not submit complete price schedules therefore their proposals were rejected. For Wards 5 and 7 no CBE was considered because no CBE submitted a complete price proposal. For Wards 1 and 2, 1 CBE was considered.

• The Request for Proposal called for vendors to submit proposals, by ward, which allowed them to submit up to eight proposals and had the effect of encouraging small, local businesses to compete. Proposals were evaluated by ward. The offeror with the highest overall score, considering price, technical factors, and CBE points per ward was awarded the contract.

• By using the RFP solicitation tool rather than the Invitation for Bids tool, the District required all bidders to present their technical capabilities and past performance as well as the price to be charged for the work. By doing so, the District wanted to establish that quality services and a minimum level of expertise and experience were required and would be weighted more heavily than price.

• In this procurement, one contractor (CBI) was the highest scorer for two wards and one contractor (Lorenz) was the highest scorer for six wards. The solicitation did not limit the number of awards that a single contractor could receive. The District could have awarded up to eight contracts.

• So it was possible that the District could have awarded all eight wards to one contractor or up to eight different contractors, one for each ward.

• Based on the evaluation of their technical capabilities, price, past performance, and preference points, CBI was awarded the contract for Wards 1 and 2, and Lorenz was awarded the contract for Wards 3 through 8. For efficiency, since the contractors were awarded multiple wards, one contract was awarded for Wards 1 and 2 and one contract for Wards 3 through 8.

• I will provide an overview of the evaluation factors included in the solicitation.

• Technical Factor 1: Technical Approach and Capability– (45 Points). The description of each of the subfactors in this category are stated in the solicitation is as follows:

o The Offeror has the capability to provide the required service as demonstrated by its Service Delivery Plan, Staffing Plan, Quality Assurance Plan, access to at least the minimum required equipment and required licensing. The Offeror’s Service Delivery Plan shows a concise and clear plan to provide the required services in a way that will complete the statement of work within the intended time frames and provide consistent and thorough operations each day. (30 Points)
o The Offeror has further demonstrated its capability by its ability to handle equipment failures, staffing issues and unscheduled requests within the proposed approach or plan. (10 Points)
o The Offeror’s key personnel have the necessary experience and qualifications. (5 Points)

• Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance and Experience (25 Points). The solicitation described this factor as follows: The Offeror has demonstrated its experience in providing grounds maintenance and landscaping services. The Offeror through the Past Performance Evaluations received from its client references has performed satisfactory or better service.

• Price (30 points) - Points are based on the following standard formula:
Lowest price proposed x weight = Evaluated price score
Price of proposal being evaluated

• The numbers used in the formula for the numerator and the denominator are the total price (base plus option years) submitted by the offeror. The weight was 30 points. The calculation used to rank the contracts uses the price submitted by all the offerors for the base and option years.

• The price score (30 percent of the total score) is added to the technical score (70 percent of the total score), plus CBE preference points (up to 12 points) to determine the total overall score.

• For ease of comparison of the prices offered by Lorenz and CBI, I’ve presented a chart of the price per acre by ward.

• In general, the greater the number of acres in a ward, the lower the unit price was. The vendors also would have factored in site conditions, ease of access to the location (traffic), and distance between the locations. The locations in Wards 1 and 2 are harder to access and their total acreage is the lowest.

• Once the evaluation phase was completed, the award packages were prepared. The package for Lorenz, which required Council approval, was transmitted to the Office of the Attorney General for approval on January 28, 2010. Once it was approved by the OAG, the package was forwarded to the Executive for transmittal to the Council.

• The Council approved the package for Lorenz on April 12, 2010. The contracts were awarded March 3, 2010 (CBI) and April 13, 2010 (Lorenz) and DPW was named contract monitor. Both contractors have performed satisfactorily.

• Currently, we are in option year one for both contracts. The CBI contract for option year one (beginning March 3, 2011) is less than $1 million; therefore, it did not require Council approval to be exercised. The Lorenz contract for a portion of option year one – April 13-November 30 – was projected to exceed $1 million; therefore, it required Council approval, which was given October 4, 2011. The justification for seeking the Council’s approval was to ensure that landscaping services would be available citywide through the growing season.

• Last spring, the Mayor determined that it was in the best interest of the District not to renew the option on a contract negotiated by the prior administration. By recompeting the contract, his expectation is that we would get a fair price for the taxpayers, and they would hire DC residents. Giving DC companies an opportunity to bid which, if successful, would keep District tax payer dollars in the District to help grow our city’s economy.

• The following is a description of the procurement for Contract DCHA-2007-C-0002, to the best of my knowledge. DPW did not have a procurement role in this contract or its successor. This procurement was conducted by OCP. DPR is the using agency and the COTR for this contract.

• Solicitation DCHA-2007-B-0002 was issued on the open market on January 22, 2007. The bids were opened on February 5, 2007. A total of six bids were received. The award was made to a bidder other than the low bidders. Four of the bidders were determined to be non-responsible, i.e. not capable of providing the required service. Community Bridge was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

• Contract DCHA-2007-C-0002 with Community Bridge, Inc. was awarded on March 19, 2007. This contract is for a specialized service, ball field maintenance. The contract had a one year base period and four one-year options. The contract is currently in the fourth and final option period. Successive partial options were exercised to allow for continuity of service while the new solicitation with revised specifications could be awarded.

• This proposed contract action to extend the contract through September 30th was requested by the program office to minimize disruption in service as DPR transitioned to DGS at the beginning of FY12. The District has received satisfactory service from the contractor.

• A new contract was awarded on October 3, 2011. The new contractor is another CBE.

• Thank you very much for allowing me to present my testimony on these three contracts. I am available to respond to your questions.