Engineering & Environment, Inc.

B-271868.3 Sep 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced proposal for environmental support services from revised competitive range is denied where the relative weaknesses in. Protester's proposed approaches to sample task requirement and professional staffing were such that the proposal was less advantageous than the proposals included in the revised competitive range and lacked a reasonable chance for award. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal most advantageous to the government. That is. Stating that technical/management was "somewhat more important" than cost. For which offerors were to provide unit and extended prices. 000 points were available under the technical factor (including 450 points for an offeror's response to a required sample task) and the remaining 300 points were available under the management factor. View Decision Matter of: Engineering & Environment, Inc. File: B-271868.3 Date: September 3, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest against exclusion of protester's lower-rated, lower-priced proposal for environmental support services from revised competitive range is denied where the relative weaknesses in, and risks associated with, protester's proposed approaches to sample task requirement and professional staffing were such that the proposal was less advantageous than the proposals included in the revised competitive range and lacked a reasonable chance for award. Attorneys DECISION Engineering & Environment, Inc. (EEI) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Reisz Engineering under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT02-95-R-0002, for environmental support services at Fort McClellan, Alabama. EEI challenges the agency's exclusion of its proposal from a revised competitive range. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, a 100-percent small business set-aside, contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract under which delivery orders would be issued for individual environmental engineering and remediation tasks, for a base period (the remainder of fiscal year 1996) and 3 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal most advantageous to the government, that is, "[a] proposal that offer[s] value in meeting the requirements--quality performance with acceptable risk at a fair and reasonable price." The solicitation provided for evaluation of "technical/managerial acceptability" and cost (price), stating that technical/management was "somewhat more important" than cost, but that cost would increase in importance as the quality differences between proposals decreased. With respect to cost, the RFP listed estimated hours for various required labor categories, for which offerors were to provide unit and extended prices, and stated that the evaluation would include consideration of cost reasonableness, total cost, and distribution of cost throughout the life of the contract. With respect to the technical and management factors, the agency's source selection evaluation plan (SSEP) provided for point scoring proposals; 700 of the overall 1,000 points were available under the technical factor (including 450 points for an offeror's response to a required sample task) and the remaining 300 points were available under the management factor. At issue here is the evaluation of EEI's proposal under (1) the technical subfactor for comprehension of the sample task requirement and, specifically, the subfactor element for implementability of the sample task solution (worth 50 weighted points, and the fourth most important sample task subfactor element), and (2) the management subfactor for compensation plan for professional employees (worth 10 weighted points, and the least important management subfactor). Eleven proposals were received by closing time; seven--including EEI's and Reisz's--were included in the initial competitive range. Following discussions, the Army requested best and final offers (BAFO). After evaluation of BAFOs, the contracting officer reduced the competitive range to four proposals; EEI's proposal was excluded. [1] EEI's BAFO offered the lowest price ($1,579,370), but the Army determined that in a number of areas EEI's proposed technical/management approach was either less advantageous and/or posed a greater risk than the approaches in the revised competitive range proposals. Among the areas of concern were (1) EEI's failure to provide adequate detail with respect to its sample task plan to implement tank removal and disposal, and (2) EEI's failure to propose professional salaries and a per diem/travel allowance sufficient to assure the delivery of uninterrupted high quality work.