Matter of:Alcan Environmental, Inc.

B-275859.2 Apr 11, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest of technical evaluation based upon alleged consideration of improper information by evaluators is denied where there is no evidence of impropriety and record fully supports the evaluation of protester's proposal. Protester's bias allegations are denied as there is no basis to conclude that agency acted with intent to injure the protester. Alcan challenges the agency's evaluation based on its allegation that evaluators were biased against the protester. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based upon consideration of the stated evaluation criteria. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of three factors. Offerors' technical proposals were evaluated on the basis of two factors with related subfactors: technical approach (eight subfactors) and key personnel and past performance (five subfactors). View Decision Matter of: Alcan Environmental, Inc. File: B-275859.2 Date: April 11, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Alcan Environmental, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Harding- Lawson Associates/Wilder Construction Company, Joint Venture (HLA/Wilder) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1422-N660-R96-3005, issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of the Interior. Alcan challenges the agency's evaluation based on its allegation that evaluators were biased against the protester. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals for hazardous materials disposal in Alaska (the Hazmat Program) under a requirements contract for a base year with two 1- year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based upon consideration of the stated evaluation criteria. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of three factors, listed in descending order of importance: technical, cost/price, and business management. Offerors' technical proposals were evaluated on the basis of two factors with related subfactors: technical approach (eight subfactors) and key personnel and past performance (five subfactors). Each subfactor was evaluated on a scale of zero (unsatisfactory) to 10 (excellent) and multiplied by the subfactor's weight. Thus, a perfect score of 10 on each subfactor would result in a weighted total score of 3,800 points. The cost/price proposals were not point scored, but were evaluated for reasonableness and an assessment of the offerors' understanding of requirements and validity of approach. The business management proposals also were not point scored, but were evaluated to determine whether offerors had adequate project management systems, subcontracting management and plans, and financial resources. Evaluations were conducted by a technical proposal evaluation committee (TPEC). The contracting officer served as source selection official (SSO). Five offerors, including Alcan and HLA/Wilder, submitted proposals by the July 10, 1996, closing date. The TPEC performed an initial evaluation in which HLA/Wilder's proposal received the highest score (3,170 points) and Alcan's the lowest (1,400 points). All offers were placed in the competitive range and written discussions were conducted. After review of the offerors' responses to the discussion questions, the agency rescored the proposals. Alcan, which proposed the lowest estimated price, had its proposal score increased to 2,090 points with a business management ranking of "good." HLA/Wilder's score increased to more than 3,400 points with a business management ranking of "very good." Since HLA/Wilder's proposal had the strongest technical score and the second lowest estimated price, the contracting officer determined that it represented the best value to the government. On December 2, prior to making his award determination, the contracting officer received a letter from Alcan which enclosed a memorandum written by a Hazmat Program specialist. The memorandum, dated September 6, discussed pending task order 008, under the incumbent contract being performed by AQE, Inc., which included Alcan as a team member. The memorandum was critical of AQE's written response plan to perform the task order. Alcan believed the document contained false statements and misrepresentations and had been widely circulated at BLM. Alcan requested an investigation of the matter and postponement of the award determination until Alcan and AQE could respond to the memorandum. The contracting officer, who was listed as an addressee on the memorandum, had never seen the document before and could not find it in the agency's records. He investigated the matter and determined that the memorandum had no impact on the evaluation of Alcan's past performance. Accordingly, he awarded the contract to HLA/Wilder on December 6. After receiving notice of the award and a debriefing, Alcan filed this protest.