Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation

B-272896 Oct 30, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range on the basis that the protester had no reasonable chance of receiving award where the proposal was properly downgraded with respect to the firm's ability to meet the solicitation's response time requirements. Where proposals in the competitive range were rated superior to protester's and protester's proposed price was higher than that of two of those proposals. The solicitation anticipates award of a fixed-price time-and-materials contract to a firm that will perform specific cleanup and/or removal services under individual delivery orders. The contract will cover the Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) Zone formed by three EPA regions. [1] Among other requirements. View Decision Matter of: Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation File: B-272896 Date: October 30, 1996 * Redacted Decision Agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range on the basis that the protester had no reasonable chance of receiving award where the proposal was properly downgraded with respect to the firm's ability to meet the solicitation's response time requirements, and where proposals in the competitive range were rated superior to protester's and protester's proposed price was higher than that of two of those proposals. Attorneys DECISION Smith Environmental Technologies Corporation protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W400735-G5, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for hazardous waste and oil cleanup and removal services. Smith argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated its technical proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation anticipates award of a fixed-price time-and-materials contract to a firm that will perform specific cleanup and/or removal services under individual delivery orders. The contract will cover the Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) Zone formed by three EPA regions. [1] Among other requirements, the contractor must ensure that its personnel and equipment respond to incidents within specified time limits. Relevant to this protest, the contractor must respond to incidents in the areas of Salt Lake City, Utah and Phoenix, Arizona within 6 hours. Award will be made to the firm whose proposal is most advantageous to the government, with technical quality more important than price. Technical proposals are to be evaluated under four criteria, in descending order of importance: management; sample work plans; key personnel; and corporate work experience. EPA received six proposals. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated each proposal and submitted a report to the contracting officer. [2] The proposals of two firms were determined to be technically superior, receiving overall ratings of outstanding and "outstanding minus," respectively, and the proposal of a third firm was rated acceptable overall. Smith's proposal was rated "marginal minus" overall. Specifically, under the most important evaluation factor, management, Smith's proposal received an unacceptable rating due to its unacceptable rating under one of the subfactors, management approach. [3] The firm's proposal received this rating principally because the evaluators believed that it was highly improbable that Smith could meet the 6-hour response time requirement to Salt Lake City and Phoenix, leaving the government, public health, and the environment vulnerable. Smith's proposal was rated unacceptable under one of the sample work plans for this same reason. [4] In her competitive range determination, the contracting officer noted that the basis for the TEP's overall determination with respect to Smith's proposal was that, although the firm had an acceptable rating in all of the other factors, if it could not get to the site in a timely manner with the required personnel and equipment, nothing else would matter materially to the cleanup of the site. The contracting officer also stated that even if Smith had received an acceptable rating overall, when she considered the technical superiority of two of the other proposals and the fact that Smith's proposal was rated third with respect to price Smith still would have no reasonable chance to receive the award. Accordingly, the contracting officer eliminated Smith's proposal from the competitive range; this protest followed. Smith challenges the agency's evaluation with respect to its ability to meet the 6-hour response time requirement. In reviewing competitive range determinations, our Office will not independently reevaluate proposals; rather, we will examine the record to ensure that the evaluation is reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. Mobility Sys. and Equip. Co., B-261072, Aug. 8, 1995, 95-2 CPD Para. 66.