Tri-State Government Services, Inc., B-277315.2, October 15,

B-277315.2 Oct 15, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A proposal which split many of the agency's estimated line item quantities and separately priced these quantities in a manner economically advantageous to the offeror was improperly selected for award. Was determined to be most advantageous to the government and identified. Price and past performance were of equal importance and significantly more important than the value of the other two factors combined. The line items were grouped into "special requirements" and the removal of different waste types. Offerors were required to insert a single unit price in the space provided for each CLIN. The proposals were reviewed by contracting personnel and. Were included in the competitive range. View Decision Matter of: Tri-State Government Services, Inc. File: B-277315.2 Date: October 15, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Tri-State Government Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Associated Environmental Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4400-96-R-0023, issued by the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for the removal, transportation, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous waste items located at various DRMS sites. Tri-State argues that the awardee's offer did not comply with the RFP terms for submission of offers and that the agency improperly engaged in discussions with the awardee. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on September 27, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed-price requirements contract for an 18-month base period with 2 option years. The RFP called for firms to provide hazardous waste management and disposal services for specifically identified generators and various pickup points. The RFP, which required the submission of separate technical, price, and past performance proposals, cautioned offerors that proposals which did not provide the required information in the prescribed format could be excluded from consideration. 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 and identified, as evaluation factors, price, past performance, socioeconomic plan, and Mentoring Business Agreement participation. Price and past performance were of equal importance and significantly more important than the value of the other two factors combined. The solicitation price schedule divided the work to be performed into 94 contract line items (CLIN) in each contract period, specifying the agency's estimated quantities for each CLIN. The line items were grouped into "special requirements" and the removal of different waste types, including, for example, "ignitable wastes," "corrosive wastes," "reactive wastes," "toxicity characteristic wastes," and "spent solvent wastes." Offerors were required to insert a single unit price in the space provided for each CLIN, multiply the unit price by the agency's estimated quantity to arrive at an extended price for each CLIN, and then add together the amounts for each CLIN to arrive at a total line item amount. The RFP provided that an offeror's total price for both options would be added to its total price for the basic requirement to calculate the total contract price. Eleven offerors submitted initial proposals by the October 31, 1996, closing date. The proposals were reviewed by contracting personnel and, based on this review, five proposals, including Tri-State's and Associated's, were included in the competitive range. DLA held discussions with these five offerors and requested best and final offers (BAFOs) by April 7, 1997. DLA requested second BAFOs from the competitive range offerors by May 16. DLA evaluated 4 of the 5 offerors' BAFOs, including Tri-State's and Associated's, as "good" under past performance evaluations and "good" under their best value composite ratings and price essentially became determinative. Associated offered the low price of $3,296,500; Tri-State's price was second low at $3,443,189.30. In its second BAFO, Associated for the first time used a pricing methodology different from that called for by the RFP. Instead of submitting single unit prices for each CLIN as requested by the RFP price schedule, for 18 CLINs in the base period and 14 CLINs in each of the option periods, Associated split the agency's estimated quantities listed on the price schedule and submitted one price for a number that it designated the "first" quantities ordered and a different price for what it designated the "next" quantities ordered. Associated did this by lining through the estimated quantity figure for the particular CLIN and printing in its own quantities and prices for both the "first" and "next" quantities in lieu of the single existing pricing block for that particular CLIN in the solicitation price schedule form.