Matter of:Wastren, Inc.

B-276093 May 12, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to evaluate proposals reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria is denied where the record does not support the allegations. DOE would weigh the apparent advantages of individual technical and business management proposals against their evaluated probable cost to determine whether higher-rated proposals were worth the evaluated probable cost differential. If two or more proposals were considered to be technically equal. Organization factor was entitled "Experience. Offerors were to submit a schedule of "other direct costs. The original option period of 2 years was changed to two 1-year options. View Decision Matter of: Wastren, Inc. File: B-276093 Date: May 12, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wastren, Inc. protests the award of a contract to East Tennessee Mechanical Contractors (ETMC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP05-96OR22416, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the provision of facility and equipment maintenance and water plant operations to DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Wastren argues that DOE improperly evaluated proposals. We deny the protest. DOE's Oak Ridge Operations Office requires a contractor to operate and maintain a 28 million gallons per day (MGD) municipal water treatment plant (the Oak Ridge water plant) and its related facilities; operate and maintain vehicle and heavy equipment maintenance and repair facilities; maintain various paved roads and grounds; and provide miscellaneous facility maintenance services and other support activities. The solicitation, issued as a small business set-aside on April 12, 1996, anticipated the award of a cost-plus-award fee contract to run for a 3-year base period, with an additional 2-year option period. Award would be made, without discussions, to the firm whose offer represented the best value to the government, considering technical and business management factors and cost. To determine which proposal represented the best value to the government, DOE would weigh the apparent advantages of individual technical and business management proposals against their evaluated probable cost to determine whether higher-rated proposals were worth the evaluated probable cost differential, if any. If two or more proposals were considered to be technically equal, cost would become the determining factor. The RFP listed three technical and business management factors--personnel, planning, and organization; corporate experience; and past performance. At issue here, the first subfactor under the personnel, planning, and organization factor was entitled "Experience, Qualifications, Commitment and Availability of Proposed Key Personnel for Assignment to the Work." [1] Under this subfactor, DOE would evaluate offerors' proposed key personnel for work experience, education, and professional development directly related to the statement of work (SOW). Cost proposals would be evaluated for reasonableness and realism to derive an evaluated probable cost for each proposal. The RFP required offerors to submit a standard form (SF) 1411 summarizing the costs for the phase-in period, base period, and option period, and to submit various schedules for different cost categories. Among other things, offerors were to submit a schedule of "other direct costs," utilizing figures provided in the RFP for capital equipment purchases and material costs. Amendment No. 003, issued May 31, informed offerors that DOE intended to transfer the Oak Ridge water plant to the City of Oak Ridge by the end of the 3-year base term. As a result, the original option period of 2 years was changed to two 1-year options. Offerors were informed that the options to the contract "will only be exercised if DOE is unable to accomplish the transfer to the City of Oak Ridge." The amendment included revised proposal preparation instructions which again required offerors to submit an SF 1411 summarizing the proposed costs for, among other things, both option years. DOE received 11 proposals by the July 11 closing date. The members of the source evaluation committee reviewed and rated each technical and business management proposal, and the cost committee evaluated the cost proposals to arrive at evaluated probable costs for each. The evaluation committee subsequently met as a group to review all of the independent evaluations of the technical and business management proposals, discuss the proposals' strengths and weaknesses, and arrive at consensus scores. [2] The evaluation committee analyzed the cost information and recommendations made by the cost committee and arrived at its final evaluation results.