SouthEastern Technologies, Inc.

B-275636 Mar 10, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Recycling project for the Department of Energy (DOE) is denied where on its face. Was a team member of a consortium that subsequently submitted a proposal to DOE to complete the project. Re-industrialization of the K-25 Site is intended to replace jobs reliant on federal funding with private industry jobs. The agency's goal is to significantly reduce the federal presence at the site by the year 2010. The purpose of the workshop was to give attendees an overview of the available facilities. The workshop was advertised in the CBD and in local and national newspapers. One approach was proposed by a consortium headed by British Nuclear Fuels Limited. The second proposal was submitted by the Teledyne/Allegheny consortium. View Decision Matter of: SouthEastern Technologies, Inc. File: B-275636 Date: March 10, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SouthEastern Technologies, Inc. challenges as unclear the terms of a Commerce Business Daily (CBD) notice published by the Department of Energy (DOE) seeking expressions of interest (EOI) for a decontamination, decommissioning, and recycling project. We deny the protest. By way of background, in 1985, DOE discontinued uranium enrichment operations at its Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The discontinuation of these operations has resulted in underutilized facilities, equipment, materials, and infrastructure. With the loss of the mission for uranium enrichment for weapons, the mission has turned to environmental cleanup and re-industrialization of the site, referred to in the record as the "K-25 Site." Re-industrialization of the K-25 Site is intended to replace jobs reliant on federal funding with private industry jobs. The agency's goal is to significantly reduce the federal presence at the site by the year 2010. To achieve that end, the Oak Ridge Operations Manager detailed a task team called "Vision 2010" to seek economical and effective means of accomplishing the agency's goal. During April 1996, the Vision 2010 task force hosted an "Industry Advice and Information Exchange" workshop to discuss the K-25 Site assets and potential business opportunities with private industry. The purpose of the workshop was to give attendees an overview of the available facilities, equipment, and material salvage and recycle operations in Oak Ridge's facilities. The workshop was advertised in the CBD and in local and national newspapers. The protester participated in the workshop and also made a presentation to members of the Vision 2010 Task Team. As a result of the workshop, several firms submitted proposals offering various approaches to complete the project. Only two approaches, however, addressed the complete decontamination and decommissioning of the three buildings at the site. One approach was proposed by a consortium headed by British Nuclear Fuels Limited, Inc. and Manufacturing Sciences Corporation (the BNFL consortium); the second proposal was submitted by the Teledyne/Allegheny consortium, which included the protester as part of its team. Over the next several months, DOE continued to work with both consortiums to refine their approaches. Ultimately, the Teledyne/Allegheny consortium concluded that it could not meet the government's needs and withdrew its proposal, leaving only the BNFL consortium to pursue the project. Based on the information DOE had gathered over the preceding several months, the agency decided to negotiate a contract on a non-competitive basis with the BNFL consortium, and on November 4, 1996, DOE published the CBD announcement at issue here. The CBD announcement, entitled "K-25 SITE THREE-BUILDING DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING (D&D) AND RECYCLING PROJECT," explained that as a result of proposals received through the Vision 2010 workshop, DOE "intends to negotiate a contract which may be on other than full and open competition for the D&D of the K-29, K-31, and K-33 process buildings and recycling of materials and equipment contained therein." The CBD notice stated that due to DOE scheduling requirements, "a formal solicitation may not be issued." Interested parties were invited to submit a "written expression of interest which should demonstrate their experience and capability to decontaminate and decommission similar facilities with a proven technology." In essence, the protester argues that the CBD announcement was so unclear that it was unable to determine what DOE intended. The requirement for and content of synopses of proposed contract actions is governed by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(e), (f) (1994) and 41 U.S.C. Sec. 416(a), (b) (1994) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 5.201, 5.207. The instant synopsis published by DOE contains an "accurate" [15 U.S.C. Sec. 637(f)(1); 41 U.S.C. Sec. 416(b)(1)] and a "clear and concise" [FAR 5.207(b)(4) (format item 17)] description of the proposed action.