ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.

ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271079.3; B-271079.4; B-271079.5; B-271079.7 DATE: July 15, 1996 TITLE: ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. File: B-271079.3; B-271079.4; B-271079.5; B-271079.7 Date:July 15, 1996 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., for the protester. Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo and Associates, for Lockheed Environmental Systems & Technologies Company, an intervenor. L. Carol Roberson, Esq., and Karen J. Carroll, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against award to offeror whose proposal received a lower technical score than protester's is denied where, although solicitation stated that technical considerations were more important than cost, the agency reasonably determined that the greater technical merit of the protester's proposal was not worth its significantly higher cost. DECISION ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. protests the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) award of a contract to Lockheed Environmental Systems & Technologies Company, under request for proposals (RFP) No. D500055R1, for Environmental Service Assistance Team (ESAT) support services for various EPA programs. Kaiser challenges the technical and cost evaluation. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of cost-plus-award-fee or cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort contracts to furnish ESAT support services for four separate geographical areas--this protest concerns the Western Zone--for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. The statement of work required the contractor to: establish ESAT work teams to collect and analyze chemical and biological test samples, review test data to assess quality and completeness, and provide logistical and administrative support to field, analytical and quality assurance activities. The solicitation provided for award to be made to the responsible offeror whose conforming proposal was most advantageous to the government. The RFP listed the following technical evaluation factors, which were to be point scored: I. Management A. Management Plan 1. Contract Start Up and Mobilization Plan (100 of 1,000 available total points) 2. Management Structure (100) B. Management Information System (100) II. Personnel A. ESAT Team Manager and Zone Manager (100) B. ESAT Key Team Personnel (200) III. Corporate Experience (100) IV. Technical A. Quality Assurance Program Plan (100) B. Hazardous Samples and Data Review (100) V. Sample Situation Scenarios (100) The solicitation further provided that the government would consider "other factors, as listed below in descending order of importance, secondary to both technical quality and cost or price": (1) status as a small business concern which is also a labor surplus area concern; (2) status as a small business concern; (3) status as a labor surplus area concern; and (4) "[r]ecord of past performance." The RFP stated that while technical quality was more important than cost in the award decision, "as proposals became more equal in their technical merit, the evaluated cost or price becomes more important," and "as the technical merit and the evaluated cost or price becomes essentially equal, other factors may become a determining factor." Two proposals for the Western Zone, from Kaiser and Lockheed, were received. Both were included in the competitive range; three rounds of discussions and best and final offers (BAFO) followed. Although Kaiser's BAFO received the highest technical score (922 points), 103 points higher than Lockheed's (819 points), the evaluated cost of Kaiser's BAFO ($78,255,207) was determined to be at least $12,800,273 more than Lockheed's ($65,454,934). (While EPA considered Lockheed's proposed costs to be realistic, it considered Kaiser's proposed indirect rates to be unsupported and as a result believed that there was a risk that Kaiser's costs could be even higher.) After reviewing the technical evaluation panel (TEP) report and performing an analysis of the proposals under each major evaluation factor, the source evaluation board (SEB) concluded that Kaiser's proposal did "not offer technical superiority that was worth its much higher costs"; the SEB therefore recommended that award be made to Lockheed based on its much lower evaluated cost.