Laidlaw Environmental Services

B-272139 Sep 06, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency's prohibition of the use of open burn/open detonation technologies in the demilitarization of improved conventional munitions is unobjectionable where it reflects legitimate environmental concerns expressed by congressional committees. The protester contends that the solicitation's prohibition against the use of open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) technologies in the demilitarization of the munitions is unduly restrictive of competition and favors original manufacturers of the munitions. [1] We deny the protest. Component reutilization and recycling. [2] The agency received six technical proposals by the closing date and is currently evaluating them. Laidlaw maintains that the OB/OD method it uses is environmentally sound and is performed by Laidlaw within the restrictions set forth in its air permit. View Decision Matter of: Laidlaw Environmental Services File: B-272139 Date: September 6, 1996 Agency's prohibition of the use of open burn/open detonation technologies in the demilitarization of improved conventional munitions is unobjectionable where it reflects legitimate environmental concerns expressed by congressional committees. Attorneys DECISION Laidlaw Environmental Services protests the terms of invitation for bids (IFB) No. DAAA09-96-B-0033, issued by the United States Army Industrial Operations Command (IOC) for the demilitarization of 8-inch improved conventional munitions. The protester contends that the solicitation's prohibition against the use of open burn/open detonation (OB/OD) technologies in the demilitarization of the munitions is unduly restrictive of competition and favors original manufacturers of the munitions. [1] We deny the protest. The IFB, issued on April 10, 1996, as a two-step sealed bid procurement, with an amended May 24 closing date for receipt of technical proposals, prohibited the use of OB/OD technologies to demilitarize any component or end item contained in the solicitation. The statement of work (SOW) required offerors to provide all the necessary material, equipment, and personnel to perform conventional ammunition demilitarization by incineration and/or resource recovery, component reutilization and recycling. [2] The agency received six technical proposals by the closing date and is currently evaluating them. Laidlaw contends that the restriction against the use of the OB/OD method improperly excludes it from participating in the procurement. Laidlaw maintains that the OB/OD method it uses is environmentally sound and is performed by Laidlaw within the restrictions set forth in its air permit. Laidlaw also maintains that since it complies with its air permit, Laidlaw's use of OB/OD does not pose any greater risk than incineration, a method of demilitarization allowed by the solicitation. Determination of the agency's minimum needs and the best method of accommodating those needs are primarily matters within the agency's discretion. Glock, Inc., B-236614, Dec. 26, 1989, 89-2 CPD para. 593. Where, as here, a specification is challenged as unduly restrictive of competition, we will review the record to determine whether the restriction imposed is reasonably related to the agency's minimum needs. Tek Contracting, Inc., B-245454, Jan. 6, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 28. The agency reports that OB/OD has been used primarily for destruction of those types of ammunition which could not be successfully demilitarized via resource recovery or controlled incineration methods. According to the agency, OB/OD detonations are destructive processes which have given rise to environmental and health issues concerning air pollution, soil and water contamination, and noise. Consequently, OB/OD is no longer a preferred methodology; it is used only when a determination is made, based on finances and technical capability, that no other method of demilitarization is available. The agency states that there are some munitions for which alternative demilitarization technologies are not yet available. The current IOC/Army policy is not to have OB/OD conducted by private contractors. When OB/OD is necessary, IOC does it in-house. The agency reports that IOC has performed all required OB/OD demilitarization in- house since 1977. According to the agency, when IOC contracts out for demilitarization of conventional munitions, use of OB/OD technologies is prohibited in order to foster the development of other, more environmentally friendly, means of demilitarization. The Army states that while there are no federal statutes banning the use of OB/OD, it is attempting to move in the direction in which Congress, through its committees, has been urging the Army to proceed, namely the development of alternate demilitarization technologies.