Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc.--Protest and

Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc.--Protest and BNUMBER: B-279602.2; B-279602.3 DATE: October 15, 1998 TITLE: Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration, B-279602.2; B-279602.3, October 15, 1998 ********************************************************************** Matter of:Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc.--Protest and Reconsideration File:B-279602.2; B-279602.3 Date:October 15, 1998 Raymond C. Schreck, Esq., for the protester. Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., and Philip S. Kauffman, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Under solicitation providing for award on the basis of price, including option years, selection of offeror with lowest total price for base and option years was reasonable and consistent with solicitation. 2. Request for reconsideration that reiterates arguments made previously and merely expresses disagreement with prior decision does not meet standards for granting reconsideration. DECISION Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc. (TCI) protests the award of a contract to Amaritime Environmental Solutions, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 600-018-98, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for medical waste removal and disposal services. The protester also requests reconsideration of our decision, Thermal Combustion Innovators, Inc., B-279602, July 1, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 3, in which we denied TCI's protest against the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest and the request for reconsideration. On February 17, 1998, the agency issued the RFP for a fixed-price contract to furnish labor, materials, equipment, transportation, and other items necessary for the removal, storage, treatment, and disposal of certain specified types of medical waste at four VA facilities in southern California, for an initial 1-year period, with four 1-year option periods. RFP sec. A. The solicitation provided for award on the basis of price and contained the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 52.217-5 providing that, unless the agency determined it not to be in the government's best interests, the agency would evaluate offers by adding the total price for all options to the price for the base year. RFP sec. M.1, M.2. By letter dated March 10, TCI filed several objections to solicitation provisions with the contracting officer. On March 13, the agency issued an amendment to the RFP and provided a letter responding to TCI's objections. On March 19, TCI filed a protest with the agency. The agency proceeded with the receipt of offers as scheduled, on March 20, and 3 days later, TCI filed a protest with our Office, which we denied by decision dated July 1. TCI requested reconsideration of this decision on July 13, and the VA awarded a contract to Amaritime 3 days later. TCI then filed a second protest with our Office.[1] The protester contends that its price for the initial 1-year period of performance is lower than Amaritime's and that the selection of Amaritime was therefore improper given that the solicitation provided for award based on low price. In reviewing an agency's evaluation and selection decisions, we examine them to ensure that they were reasonable and consistent with the stated criteria. LTR Training Sys., Inc., B-274996, B-274996.2, Jan. 16, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 71 at 4. As noted above, the RFP here included FAR sec. 52.217-5, providing that prices would be evaluated by adding the total price for all options to the price for the base year unless doing so is determined not to be in the government's best interest. Where that clause is properly included in a solicitation, the FAR requires the evaluation of offers on the basis of all options unless the contracting officer determines that evaluation would not be in the best interests of the government such as where there is a reasonable certainity that funds will be unavailable to permit exercise of the options. FAR sec. 17.206; see Crowley Co., Inc., B-258967, Feb. 21, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 105 at 4. We see no basis to object to the contracting officer's decision to evaluate all option prices here.