Jacobs Service Company; International Technology Corporation,

Jacobs Service Company; International Technology Corporation, BNUMBER: B-262088.3; B-262088.4 DATE: January 29, 1996 TITLE: Jacobs Service Company; International Technology Corporation, B-262088.3; B-262088.4, January 29, 1996 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Jacobs Service Company; International Technology Corporation File: B-262088.3; B-262088.4 Date:January 29, 1996 Brian J. Donovan, Esq., Jones & Donovan, for Jacobs Service Company; Dorn C. McGrath, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and Mark D. Colley, Esq., Holland & Knight, for International Technology Corporation, the protesters. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Bruce Lathrop, Esq., David J. Kuckelman, Esq., and Steven Kmieciak, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for Tetra Tech, Inc., an interested party. Robert L. Ballenger, Esq., and Marcia J. Bachman, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests of various aspects of agency's technical evaluation are denied where the record shows that the agency evaluated proposals consistently with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protests against agency's cost evaluation are denied where record shows that agency performed an adequate cost realism evaluation, considering the potential cost impact of various offerors' proposed approaches. 3. Agency's discussions with protesters were meaningful and not misleading where agency advised firms of areas where their proposals needed clarification, revision or amplification; agency's cautionary advice to one firm regarding risk associated with submitting technical proposal revisions with best and final offer should not reasonably have misled firm into concluding that it could not make such revisions. DECISION Jacobs Service Company (JSC) and International Technology Corporation (IT) protest the award of a contract to Tetra Tech, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. F04684-94-R-0024, issued by the Department of the Air Force for comprehensive environmental services at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Both protesters make numerous arguments regarding the propriety of the Air Force's technical and cost evaluations as well as the agency's source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a cost reimbursement contract to perform comprehensive environmental services for a base year with 4 option years. Award was to be made on a best value basis. For evaluation and award purposes, the RFP stated that the Air Force would conduct an integrated assessment of technical, management and cost considerations, with technical deemed most important, management second in importance and cost third; offerors were cautioned that cost would still be a significant consideration for award purposes. Under the technical factor, proposals were to be reviewed for understanding/proposed approach and relevant experience in four substantive areas--air, water quality, hazardous material/solid waste/hazardous waste, and natural/cultural resources. This resulted in eight equally weighted sub-elements, each of which was to be assigned a color/adjectival rating--red/unacceptable, yellow/marginal, green/acceptable, or blue/exceptional. The sub-element evaluation results were then consolidated into a single overall color/adjectival rating. Under the management factor, the ratings for understanding/proposed approach and relevant experience were combined into a single management rating. The proposals also were assigned performance risk and proposal risk ratings of high, medium or low. Cost proposals were to be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, completeness, and cost risk. The Air Force received five initial proposals. Four of the initial proposals--those submitted by Tetra Tech, JSC, IT, and Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation-- were found to be within the competitive range. Following discussions and the evaluation of best and final offers (BAFO), the Air Force found that all four offerors were essentially equal. There were slight differences between the offers in the eight technical sub-elements, with two firms receiving blue/exceptional ratings in two sub-elements each, but the Air force concluded that these ratings did not merit the assignment of an overall technical rating of blue for these offers.