Allied Technology Group, Inc.

Allied Technology Group, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271302; B-271302.2 DATE: July 3, 1996 TITLE: Allied Technology Group, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Allied Technology Group, Inc. File: B-271302; B-271302.2 Date:July 3, 1996 Donald G. Featherstun, Esq., Mitchell H. Segal, Esq., Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, for the protester. James J. Regan, Esq., Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and Bennett J. Matelson, Esq., Crowell & Moring, and Paul K. Milmed, Esq., White & Case, for Weiss Associates, the intervenors. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and Patrick M. Burke, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Technical evaluation of proposals for environmental restoration and related services is unobjectionable where it is reasonably based and consistent with the evaluation criteria and protester's identification of alleged evaluation flaws lacks any support in the record. 2. Where solicitation provides specified level of effort and skill mix, agency's cost evaluation consisting primarily of analysis of direct labor rates is reasonable. Exclusion of certain subcontractor costs from agency's most probable cost analysis is reasonable where costs were insubstantial and solicitation did not call for these costs to be included in calculating proposal cost. DECISION Allied Technology Group, Inc. (ATG) protests the award of a contract to Weiss Associates under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP03-95SF20686, issued by the Department of Energy for environmental restoration, decontamination and decommissioning, and waste management activities at the Laboratory for Energy Related Health Research (LEHR) and other selected sites in California. ATG contends that Energy's evaluation of the proposals was flawed, its cost evaluation was inadequate, and that the source selection official (SSO) failed to exercise his independent judgment. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, contemplated the award of cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for a 2-year base period with three 1-year options. The successful contractor will be responsible for planning, managing, executing, reporting, and integrating various activities in Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Program at LEHR. LEHR is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. sec. 9601 et seq. (1994)) (Superfund) site. Contract activities include, but are not limited to, characterization and remediation of the site; application of innovative remediation technologies; decontamination and decommissioning of structures and facilities; managing hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes; waste disposal; and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. sec. 6901 et seq. (1994)) (RCRA) permitting activities. The majority of work will be performed at LEHR with additional work, as directed, at other California sites. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of four technical criteria: (1) technical requirements and technical approach; (2) capabilities of the offeror; (3) organization and management; and (4) other requirements. Criteria 1 and 3 were of equal weight with criterion 2 twice as important as 1 or 3, and criterion 4 half as important as 1 or 3. Final ratings were expressed in adjectival terms: poor, inadequate, adequate, and strong. Cost was not rated or scored, but was evaluated on the basis of reasonableness and realism, probable cost, and reasonableness of professional employee compensation. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, with technical considerations being of greater importance than cost. The RFP provided for award on the basis of initial proposals and thus, offerors were advised to include their best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Twelve offerors, including ATG and Weiss, submitted proposals by the November 30, 1995, closing date for receipt of proposals. A technical evaluation committee (TEC) evaluated the proposals and numerically scored them. The TEC scored Weiss's proposal at 88.38 points out of a possible 100 and scored ATG's proposal at 78.28 points. The contract evaluation board (CEB) then conducted an independent evaluation of the proposals, taking into consideration the TEC's evaluations. The CEB also evaluated each cost proposal to determine the probable costs to the government as well as the reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs. The CEB took no exceptions to the proposed costs of the offerors. The CEB rated Weiss's proposal "strong," meaning the proposal fully addressed the requirements of the technical evaluation criteria, with major strengths and only a few possible minor weaknesses.