Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998

B-279378 Jun 05, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Source selection decision cannot be determined to be reasonable where the evaluation of the protester's proposal is inconsistent with the solicitation evaluation criteria. It is based on unsupported evaluation conclusions. The agency fails to rebut protester's assertions that its proposal was misevaluated. Century argues that its proposal was improperly evaluated and scored. The purpose of the contract is to provide HRSA with industrial hygiene and environmental specialists to provide assistance to federal agencies throughout the western United States. The contractor is to consult. Section M.5 also stated that "[o]rganizations from among those determined to be technically best qualified will be reviewed with the lowest overall cost as the primary consideration for award. View Decision Matter of: Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc. File: B-279378 Date: June 5, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Century Environmental Hygiene, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MedTox Northwest under request for proposals (RFP) No. 240-BPHC-32(7) issued by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the Department of Health & Human Services for industrial hygiene and environmental health advisory services. Century argues that its proposal was improperly evaluated and scored. We sustain the protest. The purpose of the contract is to provide HRSA with industrial hygiene and environmental specialists to provide assistance to federal agencies throughout the western United States. The contractor is to consult, plan, implement, evaluate, and certify environmental health/industrial hygiene services for federal employees and managers. The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, with cost reimbursement elements for materials and travel expenses, for a base year and 4 option years. The RFP, at section M.5, contemplated "award to the best advantage of the Government, cost and other factors considered." Section M.5 also stated that "[o]rganizations from among those determined to be technically best qualified will be reviewed with the lowest overall cost as the primary consideration for award," and that the determination of the organizations most qualified for award would include consideration of technical capabilities and past performance. The RFP included the following technical evaluation criteria and assigned weights: A. experience--maximum 50 points B. education--maximum 15 points C. professional development--maximum 15 points D. organizational information--maximum 20 points Under the first three factors, the RFP indicated that the evaluation would focus on the qualifications of proposed personnel for five technical positions: certified industrial hygienist (CIH), certified safety professional (CSP), professional engineer (PE), industrial hygienist (IH), and building inspector/management planner (BI/MP). Under these factors, evaluation points were to be assigned based on evidence in the proposals that the individual, or individuals, proposed for particular positions have certain types of experience under factor A, certain educational qualifications under factor B, and based on the number of continuing education units under factor C. For example, under the experience factor, the RFP stated that a certified industrial hygienist would be awarded 5 points for 5 years of experience in industrial hygiene and additional points would be awarded for experience in the various aspects of the field of industrial hygiene. Also under that factor, each individual proposed for a particular position could be awarded no more than 50 points and an offeror's total score for all certified industrial hygienists was to be determined by dividing the total points for all proposed certified industrial hygienists by the total number of individuals proposed for that position. Under the fourth factor, organizational information, each offeror was to provide "an organizational chart and a description of how the various components will relate to staff who will perform services under this contract including lines of communication, authority and reporting relationships." RFP at Sec. M.1.D. Offerors were to submit consultant agreements and other written agreements and were to provide a resume for the project director. The organizational information factor also stated that offerors should identify the relationship of their project director to their corporate structure and should include the following: 1. A narrative description on selection methods for subcontractors. 2. A narrative discussion of the methods the offeror plans to use to insure proper managerial control is exercised over the subcontractors. 3.