Jason Associates Corporation, B-278689; B-278689.2; B-

Jason Associates Corporation, B-278689; B-278689.2; B- BNUMBER: B-278689; B-278689.2; B-278689.3 DATE: March 2, 1998 TITLE: Jason Associates Corporation, B-278689; B-278689.2; B- 278689.3, March 2, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Jason Associates Corporation File: B-278689; B-278689.2; B-278689.3 Date:March 2, 1998 Mark A. Rowland, Esq., and Lane L. McVey, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for the protester. John R. Jefferies, Esq., Fennemore Craig, for Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc., an intervenor. Jeffrey I. Kessler, Esq., and Maj. Harry W. Longbottom, Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that source selection authority (SSA) acted improperly when, in response to eventual awardee's agency-level protest of the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range, she reevaluated a portion of the proposal and reinstated it in the competitive range is denied; the SSA acted within her authority and her reevaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation factors. 2. Protest that SSA improperly considered the proposals of the protester and the awardee to be tied under the performance risk evaluation factor when the performance risk assessment group found distinctions is denied where the record shows that the SSA's conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme; agency's failure to check all references listed in the proposal is unobjectionable. 3. Protest that no contemporaneous documentation exists to show that the SSA followed the solicitation's weighted basis for award scheme in making her award decision is denied where her post-protest explanation, which is consistent with the contemporaneous documentation, provides a detailed rationale for her decision which is sufficient for our Office to conclude that her decision was both consistent with the solicitation and reasonable. DECISION Jason Associates Corporation protests the award of a contract to Gutierrez-Palmenberg, Inc. (GPI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAD01-97-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army to obtain environmental support services at the U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground (USAYPG) in Yuma, Arizona. Jason challenges various aspects of the Army's evaluation of GPI's proposal and its source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The USAYPG conducts developmental and desert environmental testing of materiel, and must ensure that these testing activities and its facility operations comply with federal, state, and Army environmental/radiation statutes and regulations. To this end, the USAYPG requires the services of an environmental support contractor to provide scientific, engineering, technical, and regulatory compliance assistance. Tasks will generally fall within the areas of analyses, studies, remediation, evaluations of the effects of USAYPG activities, and preparation of reports and other required documents. RFP sec. C.1. Commerce Business Daily announcements advised potential contractors that the Army intended to procure these services under a multi-phase acquisition set aside for small businesses. Under Phase I of the acquisition, offerors' "mini-proposals" were to be evaluated pursuant to a color-coded rating scheme to determine the firms' technical capabilities under various weighted factors.[1] Technically capable firms were to be down-selected to participate in Phase II of the acquisition. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA) for this procurement, conducted the Phase I evaluation. The mini-proposals of Jason and GPI, the incumbent contractor providing these services, were evaluated as follows: Phase I Factors GPI Jason Contractor Experience (5)GreenBlue EPA Violations (5) Green Green Key Personnel (4) Green Green Quality Assurance Plan (4)BlueGreen Training Program (3)Green Green Subcontracting (2) Green Blue The contracting officer's contemporaneous documentation shows that she ranked GPI's Phase I proposal first and Jason's third overall. Both firms were down-selected to participate in Phase II of the acquisition. The RFP, issued May 29, 1997, explained that Phase II proposals were to be evaluated under three factors: technical merit, performance risk analysis, and cost. RFP Attachment (Att.) 2, para. 2. Technical merit, the most important factor, consisted of three equally important subfactors: understanding of problems/objectives; specific contractor capabilities and experience in cited subject areas; and technical report/writing quality. Id. at para. 2.A.