GZA Remediation, Inc.

B-272386 Oct 03, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army Corps of Engineers' contract award for underground storage tank removal, contending that: (1) the awardee was unreasonably given credit for the past performance of its subcontractor; and (2) it should have been awarded the contract, since it submitted the lowest bid. GAO held that the: (1) bid evaluations were reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; (2) Corps made an appropriate cost-technical tradeoff in selecting the awardee's higher-priced, technically superior bid; and (3) solicitation did not prohibit the consideration of a subcontractor's past performance in the evaluation of proposals. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: GZA Remediation, Inc. File: B-272386 Date: October 3, 1996 * Redacted Decision Agency properly considered the past performance of the awardee's subcontractor under the relevant evaluation factor where the solicitation did not prohibit the use of subcontractors to perform the contract or prohibit the consideration of a subcontractor's prior contracts in the evaluation of proposals. Award to higher priced offeror which had higher-rated proposal under nonprice factors is proper where there is a reasonable factual basis for the selection decision and that decision is consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. Attorneys DECISION GZA Remediation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Abscope Environmental, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA41-96-R-0017 issued by the Corps of Engineers for removal of underground storage tanks and related work at Griffiss Air Force Base, Oneida County, New York. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated award of a firm, fixed-price contract for work at two sites including the removal of a 25,000-gallon underground storage tank and related equipment and pipelines, demolition of a building and removal of five underground storage tanks, including four 50,000- gallon fuel tanks with residual fuel and one 2,000-gallon underground tank. The work is related to the closure of the Air Force base and is to include excavation and sampling of soils to determine if there is contamination due to leakage. The RFP stated that award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal offered the best value to the government "in terms of tradeoffs between [price] and technical merit as determined by evaluation of proposals according to the established evaluation criteria." The solicitation listed five evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (1) Price; (2) Technical expertise; (3) Past Performance; (4) Local business preference; and (5) Subcontracting with local and small businesses. The solicitation explained that prices would not be scored but in selecting the best overall proposal, the agency would consider "the value of each proposal in terms of the quality offered for the cost." Nineteen proposals were submitted. Based on an initial evaluation by a source selection evaluation team (SSET) and based on the prices of those proposals, a source selection board (SSB) recommended a competitive range of three, including GZA and Abscope. The contracting officer accepted that recommendation. After discussions with the competitive range offerors, and the submission of revised proposals, the SSET met to assign consensus scores to each proposal under each evaluation factor and subfactor. A contract specialist then calculated weighted scores by multiplying the consensus scores by weights assigned by a source selection plan. [1] The weighted scores for GZA and Abscope were as follows: Factors GZA Abscope Technical expertise 320 306 Past performance 180 180 Local business preference 0200 Subcontracting 100 100 TOTAL SCORES: 600 786 The agency then requested and received best and final offers (BAFO). GZA's BAFO was priced at $1,141,002.25, and Abscope's BAFO was priced at $1,413,794.95. The SSB determined that Abscope's proposal offered the best value to the government consistent with the evaluation factors set forth in the RFP and recommended award to Abscope. That recommendation was approved by the contracting officer, as the source selection authority, and the contract was awarded to Abscope. GZA first argues that in the past performance evaluation, Abscope was unreasonably given credit for the work of a proposed subcontractor. According to GZA, the RFP did not permit consideration of subcontractors' prior contracts under the past performance factor. We do not agree. A proposed subcontractor's prior contracts properly may be considered under relevant evaluation factors where the RFP allows for the use of subcontractors to perform the contract and does not prohibit the consideration of a subcontractor's contracting history in the evaluation of proposals. Seair Transp. Servs., Inc., B-252266, June 14, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 458.