Matter of: The Ensign-Bickford Company

B-274904.4 Feb 12, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest is denied where delivery requirements had not changed. There is no showing of competitive prejudice from the error. STS' proposal stated only that its facilities were "operated in strict compliance with all [f]ederal. STS advised the agency that it used a subcontractor to dispose of all explosives and hazardous wastes generated at its current facility and did not have a formal "waste management procedure" document. Evaluators determined that STS was acceptable under the environmental compliance subfactor. Was considerably lower than the protester's evaluated price of nearly $9.5 million. A series of protests by Ensign-Bickford followed. [1] Ensign-Bickford here contends that the agency should have rejected STS' proposal because STS did not provide proof of environmental compliance. View Decision Matter of: The Ensign-Bickford Company File: B-274904.4 Date: February 12, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION The Ensign-Bickford Company protests the award of a contract to Shock Tube Systems (STS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAE30-96-R-0090, issued by the Department of the Army for M14 blasting caps. Ensign- Bickford asserts that the Army improperly accepted a proposal that did not meet solicitation requirements. We deny the protest. On July 19, 1996, the Army issued the solicitation for award of a firm, fixed-price contract for production and delivery of alternative quantities of blasting caps, for time-delayed initiation of fuses used in demolition work, manufactured in accordance with section C of the RFP, the statement of work. The RFP requested prices for verification testing and first article testing, as well as fiscal year 1996 requirements (quantities of 130,000, 145,000, and 160,000 caps), fiscal year 1996 requirements for inert caps (8,000 and 10,000), and similar option quantities for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. The solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate price by adding all prices for all quantities for the base and option years, in addition to the prices for verification testing and first article testing. The solicitation provided for award to the low, technically acceptable offeror providing documentation and technical explanation demonstrating compliance with requirements in section L of the RFP, the instructions for preparation of proposals. The RFP required each offeror to demonstrate its acceptability under evaluation factors and subfactors listed at paragraph M.4 of the solicitation, as follows: technical (paragraph L.12 of the RFP), including the six subfactors of requirements, quality assurance, environmental compliance, manufacturing, packaging, and safety; and management (paragraph L.14 of the RFP), including the three subfactors of schedule, facilities/capabilities, and past performance. In pertinent part, under the subfactor of environmental compliance, paragraph L.12 of the RFP required offerors to provide proof of compliance with federal, state, local and Army environmental laws and regulations, as well as a copy of the offeror's waste management procedures. Under the subfactor of schedule, paragraph L.14 of the solicitation required offerors to provide a comprehensive schedule and milestones for technical and management activities, contract deliverables, and government support activities. The protester and STS submitted proposals on August 19. Evaluators found STS' proposal unacceptable under the subfactor of environmental compliance because STS had provided no proof of compliance with environmental laws and regulations and no copy of its waste management procedures. STS' proposal stated only that its facilities were "operated in strict compliance with all [f]ederal, State, [l]ocal and Army environmental laws and regulations." The agency then initiated discussions with the offerors, identifying the deficiency and affording STS the opportunity to revise its proposal. In response, STS advised the agency that it used a subcontractor to dispose of all explosives and hazardous wastes generated at its current facility and did not have a formal "waste management procedure" document. STS proposed to subcontract waste management under the RFP to Laidlaw Environmental Services and provided data on Laidlaw's capabilities and compliance with environmental regulations. After review of this submission, evaluators determined that STS was acceptable under the environmental compliance subfactor. STS' evaluated price, approximately $8.25 million, was considerably lower than the protester's evaluated price of nearly $9.5 million. Accordingly, on September 27, the agency awarded a contract to STS as the low, acceptable offeror. A series of protests by Ensign-Bickford followed.