GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2; B-280511.3, October 19, 1998

GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2; B-280511.3, October 19, 1998 BNUMBER: B-280511.2; B-280511.3 DATE: October 19, 1998 TITLE: GTS Duratek, Inc., B-280511.2; B-280511.3, October 19, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:GTS Duratek, Inc. File: B-280511.2; B-280511.3 Date:October 19, 1998 Mary Ita Snyder, Esq., Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Richard J. Vacura, Esq., and Carl L. Vacketta, Esq., Piper & Marbury, for the protester. Raymond Fioravanti, Esq., and Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for Allied Technology Group, Inc., an intervenor. Elizabeth Rivera, Esq., and Sandra D. Jumper, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Tania Calhoun, Esq. and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency improperly determined that awardee's proposal met the solicitation's minimum technical requirements is sustained where the proposal is ambiguous, at best, with respect to whether it met certain requirements and where the contemporaneous evaluation documentation shows serious concerns regarding the awardee's technical acceptability that were not resolved. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated offerors' past performance is sustained where the record shows that, with respect to both offerors, the agency ignored relevant information that was personally known to one of the agency evaluators, and where the agency failed to comply with the solicitation's evaluation criteria with respect to the past performance evaluation. DECISION GTS Duratek, Inc. (GTSD)[1] protests the award of a contract to Allied Technology Group, Inc. (ATG) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-97-R-1001, issued by the Department of the Navy for the comprehensive reduction and disposal of radioactive waste generated by the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (PHNS) in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. GTSD challenges as improper the Navy's conclusion that ATG's proposal met the solicitation's minimum technical requirements; the Navy's evaluation of offerors' past performance; and the Navy's failure to reconcile the pricing assumptions on which offerors based their pricing. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND The solicitation, issued January 24, 1997, requests the services of a firm to pick up PHNS's radioactive waste from designated locations on the West Coast; transport the waste to a licensed processing facility; process and/or volume-reduce the waste via designated methods; and provide further transportation of the material to a licensed disposal facility, as required. RFP sec. C1.1B. The RFP's statement of work (SOW) set forth detailed requirements for each designated processing and/or volume-reduction method, including supercompaction, incineration/vitrification, metal melting, and the resin, sluicing/dewatering process. RFP sec. C1.3. The successful offeror was to be awarded a fixed-price requirements contract to perform these services over 1 base year and 1 option year. RFP sec. A.1, B.1. Firms wishing to be considered for award were required to submit proposals consisting of technical, past performance, and price volumes. Each is at issue here. Offerors' technical volumes were to describe and define their understanding of and compliance with all requirements contained in the RFP/SOW. Among other things, offerors were asked to explain how they complied with the RFP's requirements concerning special licenses and permits, various methods of radioactive material processing, radiological concerns, transportation, and emergency response plans. RFP sec. L.101.C.2. Offerors' past performance volumes were to include all data and information demonstrating the overall quality of past performance on same or similar requirements with approximately the same per year dollar value. RFP sec. L.101.C.1. The overall quality of each offeror's past performance was to be "highly influential" in determining the relative merits of the overall proposal and in selecting the offeror whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government. RFP sec. L.101.C.3.B. Offerors' price volumes were to include section B of the RFP with a price proposed for each line item. RFP sec. L.101.C.4. The sum of all line items was to result in the estimated total amount for both contract periods. RFP sec. B.1. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal met the minimum technical requirements and offered the best past performance to the government; past performance was more important than price. RFP sec. M.100.b. Section M.100.a.