Chemical Demilitarization Associates, B-277700, November 13,

B-277700 Nov 13, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Cannot be determined reasonable where the evaluation record reflects differences in the merit of competing technical proposals and the agency's rationale for finding the proposals equivalent under every criterion is not supported by the record. CDA alleges that the source selection decision is unreasonable. Demilitarization facilities for destroying chemical weapons have been or will be constructed and operated at nine sites where the weapons are located. A contract for the prototype chemical demilitarization facility was awarded in 1986 to Raytheon for the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS). A contract for the second facility was awarded in 1989 to EG&G. A third contract was awarded in 1996 to Westinghouse Electric Corporation for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Alabama. View Decision Matter of: Chemical Demilitarization Associates File: B-277700 Date: November 13, 1997 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Chemical Demilitarization Associates (CDA), a joint venture of EG&G, Inc. and Morrison Knudsen, protests an award to Raytheon Demilitarization Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA09-92-R-0351, issued by the Department of the Army, Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM), Rock Island, Illinois, for construction, equipment installation, systemization, operation and closure of the Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (PBCDF), Arkansas. CDA alleges that the source selection decision is unreasonable. We sustain the protest. Demilitarization facilities for destroying chemical weapons have been or will be constructed and operated at nine sites where the weapons are located. A contract for the prototype chemical demilitarization facility was awarded in 1986 to Raytheon for the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS). A contract for the second facility was awarded in 1989 to EG&G, Inc. for the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Utah. A third contract was awarded in 1996 to Westinghouse Electric Corporation for the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Alabama. Most recently, a fourth contract was awarded in February 1997 to Raytheon for the Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility in Oregon. The RFP, issued on July 8, 1994, contemplated the award of a combination fixed-price and cost-plus-award-fee contract. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best value basis considering the areas of technical, management, past performance, and cost/price. The RFP, as amended, stated the relative importance of each of these areas as follows: Technical approach is more important than management. Management is somewhat more important than either of past performance or cost/price. Past performance and cost/price are of equal importance. The technical and management areas were divided into elements, which in turn were divided into factors and, in the case of one factor, subfactors--this amounted to 27 constituent evaluation criteria in these two areas whose relative importance was stated in the RFP. [1] As stated in the RFP, the technical and management areas would be numerically scored and assessed for proposal risk. Past performance had no stated subordinate elements or factors (although the RFP stated in narrative what would be considered under this area). A performance risk assessment group (PRAG) was to evaluate the quality of an offeror's past performance and assign a risk rating of low, moderate, high, or unknown (i.e., no relevant experience). Cost/price was to be evaluated, but not numerically scored. The cost/price evaluation would also include an integrated assessment of proposal risk. CDA, Raytheon, and Westinghouse responded to the RFP. /2/ The agency conducted multiple rounds of discussions and ultimately requested two rounds of best and final offers (BAFO). Offerors submitted their second round of BAFOs by April 28, 1997. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the proposals under the technical and management areas by assigning adjectival ratings and corresponding scores on a 100-point scale. /3/ The evaluation resulted in CDA's proposal receiving a technical score of 90.6 compared to 84 for Raytheon. Within the technical area, CDA's proposal received a higher score than Raytheon's under 12 of the 16 constituent criteria, of which the difference between the two proposals' scores for about half of these was 15 or more points. Raytheon's proposal did not receive a higher score than CDA's under any of the technical criteria. This difference in scores resulted in CDA's proposal receiving a higher score than Raytheon's under every evaluation element of the technical area. Under the management area, Raytheon's proposal received a score of 89.8 compared to 84.6 for CDA.