Roy F. Weston, Inc.

Roy F. Weston, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3 DATE: January 15, 1997 TITLE: Roy F. Weston, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Roy F. Weston, Inc. File: B-274945, B-274945.2; B-274945.3 Date:January 15, 1997 Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., and David F. Dowd, Esq., Miller & Chevalier, for the protester. Paul Shnitzer, Esq., and Mark D. Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Booz-Allen & Hamilton, an intervenor. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., and Paul A. Gervas, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors; protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusion does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 2. Protest that agency did not conduct meaningful discussions because it failed to advise the protester of two weaknesses in its proposal and failed to inform the protester that the agency did not obtain additional information on the protester's prior contracts is denied where the allegation concerning one weakness is factually incorrect, the protester fails to demonstrate how it was prejudiced by the agency's alleged failure to obtain additional information, and the protester was not adversely affected by one poorly worded discussion question regarding a minor weakness. 3. Agency reasonably used a cost realism analysis approach based on revised labor estimates reflecting an average of proposed composite labor rates. 4. Under a solicitation in which technical factors were more important than price, a cost/technical tradeoff which resulted in selection of the awardee on the basis of its overall technical superiority, notwithstanding its higher price, is unobjectionable and consistent with the evaluation scheme where the agency reasonably determined that the awardee's higher-priced proposal, which offered superior key personnel, program management, and technical approach, was worth the associated additional cost. DECISION Roy F. Weston, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Booz-Allen & Hamilton under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-95RW00312, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for management and technical services to support DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM).[1] Weston has raised a number of objections to the award.[2] Most significantly, the protester challenges the agency's evaluation of technical and cost proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the source selection decision.[3] The protests are denied. The RFP, issued August 3, 1995, provides for the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee, level-of-effort, task assignment type contract for a 2-year base period with three 1-year options. The successful offeror is to provide management and technical support services for OCRWM staff at DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas, Nevada.[4] The statement of work (SOW) informed offerors that the required total level of effort was 219,480 direct productive labor hours (DPLH) per year for a total of 1,097,400 hours in 41 labor categories. Half of the DPLH were to be provided at DOE Headquarters and half at the Las Vegas office. The RFP called for the submissions of separate technical and cost/price proposals. The technical proposal was of significantly greater importance than the cost proposal. The RFP provided that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, was determined to be most advantageous to the government. The RFP identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors: 1. Past Performance 2. Personnel a. Key Personnel b. Support Staff 3. Technical Approach and Understanding of the Work 4. Program Management and Responsiveness[5] Offerors were also informed that proposals would be evaluated to determine the probable cost to the government. The solicitation advised that the government would determine if the compensation plans and professional salary rates and benefits that offers were to submit reflected a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Three proposals were received, including those of Weston and Booz-Allen, by the September 15 closing date. The proposals were reviewed individually by each of the four members of the technical evaluation committee (TEC).