Energy and Environmental Services

B-258139.5 Feb 26, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied. The agency failed to determine if awardee's proposed costs for environmental services were (1) realistic for the work to be performed. (3) were consistent with its technical approach. ACCI's proposal was ranked first technically with a score of 985 out of a possible 1. 000 points and EES' proposal was ranked second with a score of 874. Was the lowest in cost. Was fourth low. The contracting officer noted that ACCI's proposal was rated low risk for performance. Was technically superior to the others by a significant margin. Was only 3.3 percent higher in cost than the lowest-cost proposal. Award was made to ACCI based on its initial proposal. (1) Are realistic for the work to be performed. View Decision Matter of: Energy and Environmental Services Corporation--Reconsideration File: B-258139.5 Date: February 26, 1996 Request for reconsideration based on original decision's failure to address protester's argument that contracting agency failed to perform cost realism analysis of awardee's proposal, as required by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) section 215.801, is denied; while original decision did not set forth and directly address the requirements of DFARS section 215.801, the decision did address and deny protester's numerous allegations that, in contravention of DFARS section 215.801, the agency failed to determine if awardee's proposed costs for environmental services were (1) realistic for the work to be performed, (2) demonstrated that awardee understood the requirements of the solicitation, and (3) were consistent with its technical approach. Attorneys DECISION Energy and Environmental Services Corporation (EES) requests reconsideration of our decision Energy and Envtl. Servs. Corp., B-258139.4, May 15, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 32, in which we denied EES' protest against the award of a contract to ASCR Contracting Company, Inc. (ACCI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD01-93-R-0046, issued by the Department of the Army for the acquisition of caretaker and environmental services for the U.S. Army Jefferson Proving Ground. We deny the request. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract and advised offerors that the contract would be awarded on the basis of the best value to the government and that the government would be willing to pay more for a superior technical/management proposal. The solicitation also informed offerors that the government intended to award the contract without holding discussions. Of eight offers received in response to the RFP, ACCI's proposal was ranked first technically with a score of 985 out of a possible 1,000 points and EES' proposal was ranked second with a score of 874. The EES and ACCI proposals both received low risk ratings. ACCI proposed the second lowest cost of $5,659,732, and EES proposed the second highest cost of $14,168,513. The third ranked technical proposal, with a score of 782.6, was the lowest in cost, $5,474,866. The fourth ranked technical proposal had a score of 761.3 and, at $6,743,299, was fourth low. As explained in our decision, in recommending award to ACCI, the contracting officer noted that ACCI's proposal was rated low risk for performance; was technically superior to the others by a significant margin; had no deficiencies and a number of advantages; and was only 3.3 percent higher in cost than the lowest-cost proposal, which had two major deficiencies, a significant number of weaknesses, and only one advantage. Award was made to ACCI based on its initial proposal. In its protest, EES principally argued that the Army did not perform a cost realism analysis of ACCI's cost proposal, as required by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) section 215.801. As EES noted, that provision defines a cost realism analysis as "a review of the overall costs of an offeror's proposal to determine if they--(1) Are realistic for the work to be performed; (2) Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and (3) Are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal." EES asserted that, in contravention of DFARS section 215.801, the Army failed to determine if ACCI's proposed costs for environmental services were realistic for the work to be performed, demonstrated that ACCI understood the requirements of the solicitation, or were consistent with its technical approach. In making these arguments, EES focused on various alleged inconsistencies between ACCI's technical and cost proposals and argued that the agency failed to analyze the realism of ACCI's proposed costs because agency officials failed to compare ACCI's cost and technical proposals and therefore did not appreciate these inconsistencies.