EOD Technology, Inc.

B-266026 Dec 18, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably found that the protester's low-priced proposal was deficient because it omitted an important required sample report and contained inadequate sample maps. Such that it was properly not selected for award. Unless the contracting officer determined that discussions were necessary. The technical proposal was two times more important than the management proposal. Which in turn was more important than the cost proposal. There were three technical factors listed in descending order of importance: (i) Scope of Work. There were four management factors listed in descending order of importance: (i) Corporate Experience. Offerors were to demonstrate their level of understanding by providing "an example of a customer accepted Work Plan for an OEW removal action.". View Decision Matter of: EOD Technology, Inc. File: B-266026 Date: December 18, 1995 Agency reasonably found that the protester's low-priced proposal was deficient because it omitted an important required sample report and contained inadequate sample maps, such that it was properly not selected for award, given the awardee's highly rated, reasonably priced proposal which contained no deficiencies. Attorneys DECISION EOD Technology, Inc. protests the evaluation of its proposal, and the award of a contract to Human Factors Applications, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA87-94-R-0051, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for ordnance and explosive waste (OEW) remediation services on a time-and-materials basis at various military installations. We deny the protest. The remediation services contemplated by the RFP included site analysis; location surveys and mapping; geophysical surveys; sampling; and interim and permanent removal services. The RFP stated that the contractor might encounter the following types of OEW in performing its services: conventional and chemical munitions; hazardous, toxic and radiological waste; and chemical warfare material. The RFP advised offerors that the government intended to make award on the basis of initial proposals, unless the contracting officer determined that discussions were necessary. See Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.215-16, Alternate III. Under the RFP's "best value" evaluation scheme, the technical proposal was two times more important than the management proposal, which in turn was more important than the cost proposal. There were three technical factors listed in descending order of importance: (i) Scope of Work, (ii) Technical Approach, and (iii) Safety. There were four management factors listed in descending order of importance: (i) Corporate Experience, (ii) Qualifications and Allocation of Personnel, (iii) Management Planning and Controls, and (iv) Organizational Structure. The most important technical factor, Scope of Work, contained three subfactors listed in descending order of importance: (i) OEW Remediation Program, (ii) Work Plan, and (iii) Final Removal Report for OEW Removal Action. For the Work Plan subfactor, offerors were to demonstrate their level of understanding by providing "an example of a customer accepted Work Plan for an OEW removal action." The sample Work Plan was to include a customer-accepted Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan or similar document. [1] For the Final Removal Report subfactor, the RFP requested a customer-accepted Final Removal Report demonstrating how the contractor removed OEW from a given site. The sample Final Removal Report was to include "planimetric or topographic maps which show all significant ground surface features and ordnance removal sites." Of the nine proposals received, the proposal submitted by Human Factors Applications, Inc. was the only one that contained no evaluated deficiencies. The Human Factors proposal also earned the highest technical rating, with 895 of 1,000 points, and the highest management rating, with 499 of 500 points, for a composite score of 1,394 points. In contrast, EOD's proposal earned 869 technical points (the second highest score) and 449 management points (the sixth highest score), for a composite score of 1,318 points (the second highest score). EOD's technical proposal contained evaluated disadvantages or deficiencies in 10 of the 12 subfactors. [2] The three evaluated deficiencies in EOD's technical proposal were (1) its failure to provide the required Work, Data, and Cost Management Plan under the Work Plan subfactor; (2) its submission of inadequate planimetric maps under the Final Removal Report subfactor; and (3) its failure to address the safety record of its proposed subcontractors under the Safety factor. EOD's management proposal contained eight evaluated disadvantages and one deficiency.