Matter of:Resource Applications, Inc.

B-274943.3 Mar 05, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) contract award technical services, contending that: (1) EPA's consensus scores under certain evaluation subfactors were arbitrary and not rationally related to the merits of the bidders' proposals; (2) EPA did not offer a rationale or explanation for the difference between the consensus scores and the individual evaluators scores; and (3) the awardee failed to provide past performance project summary sheets for all of the projects it discussed in its best and final offer (BAFO) oral presentation. GAO held that: (1) EPA's consensus scores accurately reflected the relative merits of both proposals, since EPA evaluators discussed the relative weaknesses and strengths of the proposals to reach a consensus rating and clear up any misconceptions or mistakes that may have occurred in the initial evaluation; (2) there was no credible evidence that the consensus evaluation was unreasonable; and (3) the awardee was not required to submit past performance project summary sheets in its BAFO oral presentation. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Resource Applications, Inc. File: B-274943.3 Date: March 5, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Resource Applications, Inc. (RAI) protests the award of a Regional Oversight Contract (ROC) to TechLaw, Inc. by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W500823G3, for technical services. We deny the protest. The RFP, a total small business set-aside, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technical services to support EPA's Federal Facilities Revitalization and Reutilization Office in its mission of oversight and enforcement of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at federal facilities in EPA Zone 3. [1] The RFP contained a detailed statement of work and set forth EPA's best estimate of the level-of-effort hours that would be needed. Work to be performed under the ROC will be ordered through written work assignments issued by the contracting officer. The ROC is for a base period of 2 years with 3 option years as well as options to increase the level of effort for each period of performance. The RFP stated that technical quality was more important than cost, but as proposals became more technically equal, evaluated cost would become more important. The RFP established three technical evaluation factors worth a maximum score of 570 points: three sample regional response scenarios (one for each region within EPA Zone 3, including Region V) worth 75 points a piece, for a total of 225 points; a labor mix matrix worth a maximum of 105 points; and past performance worth a maximum of 240 points. The past performance factor was broken down into 14 subfactors grouped in three categories: RCRA compliance, CERCLA assessment, and remedial activities support. The RCRA compliance category included a technical review subfactor and the remedial activities support category included a removal activities and a remedial action activities subfactor. EPA charged a technical evaluation panel (TEP) with evaluating each offeror's proposal on a scale of 0 (deficient) to 5 (superior in most features) for each factor and subfactor. These scores were then to be weighted according to the RFP's evaluation scheme. In addition, the score for each past performance subfactor was to be multiplied by a level of confidence assessment rating (LOCAR) to determine the final score for the past performance factor. The LOCARs reflected the government's degree of confidence that the offeror would keep the promises made in its proposal and were to be derived based on past performance information obtained by the contracting officer from references listed in past performance project summary sheets submitted by each offeror. The RFP required offerors to submit written technical and cost proposals, and also to present oral technical proposals, which would be videotaped by EPA for evaluation by the TEP. [2] During the oral presentations each offeror was to address the three sample regional response scenarios specified in the RFP; the offerors' proposed labor mix; and project summaries for past performance. Offerors were required to submit, for each project to be referred to in the oral presentation, a written past performance project summary sheet identifying the client, a description of the project, and a point of contact. TechLaw and RAI submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Besides their written technical and cost proposals, both offerors submitted past performance project summary sheets and later gave oral presentations to EPA.