Buck Environmental Technologies, LLC, B-280520, October 14,

B-280520 Oct 14, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester was not prejudiced by the agency's consideration of the transportation costs to the government associated with each offeror's proposal in determining which proposal submitted in response to a solicitation for the demilitarization of ammunition represented the best value to the government. Because the agency reasonably determined that the costs should be considered and the record does not evidence that if the solicitation had been explicit the protester would have submitted a different proposal that would have had a reasonable possibility of award. 2. Agency's estimate of transportation costs associated with the protester's proposal cannot be determined unreasonable where the estimate was prepared by government transportation rate specialists. View Decision Matter of: Buck Environmental Technologies, LLC File: B-280520 Date: October 14, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Buck Environmental Technologies, LLC protests the award of a contract to PRIMEX Technologies, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA09-97-R-0209, issued by the Department of the Army for the demilitarization of ammunition. Buck argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable and not in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on January 28, 1998, provided for a fixed price contract with a performance period not to exceed 18 months from the date of award. RFP at 2, RFP statement of work (SOW) at 1. The successful contractor under the RFP will be required to provide all necessary materials, equipment, and personnel to demilitarize certain ammunition. /1/ RFP SOW at 1. The solicitation provided that the ammunition would be furnished "F.O.B. contractor's place of performance," RFP at 11, and that the "[a]mmunition shipped to a contractor site will be shipped at Government expense." RFP SOW at 11. The RFP (at 8) also incorporated by reference the standard clause "F.O.B. Point for Delivery of Government-Furnished Property," Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 52.247-55, which states in part: If the destination of such Government-furnished property is a Contractor's plant located outside the 48 contiguous states, the District of Columbia or Canada, the f.o.b. point for Government delivery of Government-furnished property shall be a location in the United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) specified by the Contractor. Award in the procurement was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. RFP at 2, 28. The RFP requested that offerors, "in lieu of a written technical proposal . . . make an oral presentation to a panel of government evaluators." RFP at 2. The solicitation listed the following evaluation factors and their relative weights: oral presentation (40 percent); past performance (40 percent), and cost (20 percent). RFP at 28-29. The solicitation also noted that the agency would "develop a level of confidence assessment rating for each offeror" which would "reflect the government's degree of confidence that the offeror will keep the promises it made in its proposal." RFP at 29. The RFP, in setting forth detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, noted that the oral presentation would "be an opportunity for the offeror to demonstrate his understanding of the RFP requirements and provide additional insight into his capability to perform." RFP at 25. The RFP added that the oral presentation would be limited to 2 hours, and that the number of presenters would be limited to four. Id. The solicitation also required that an offeror provide a written summary of its oral presentation, not to exceed 10 pages in length, prior to the oral presentation. Id. Section L of the RFP included a detailed outline for the oral presentation, and informed offerors that "oral presentation presenters must demonstrate specific/detailed knowledge of and proposed application to" the demilitarization process and the associated areas of safety, security, and environmental concerns. RFP at 26. The outline included three to four items under each of these areas (demil process, safety, security, and environmental concerns) which the offerors were instructed to address. Id. For example, the RFP (at 26) included the following items to be addressed by the offerors during the portion of their oral presentations about safety: 1. Show how you will comply with the contractual safety regulation, DOD [Department of Defense] 4145.26M, DOD Contractors' Safety Manual for Ammunition and Explosives. 2. Discuss your facility siting and quantity-distance compliance applicable to the place of performance for this contract. 3. Specify specific industrial safety and regulatory compliance issues related to this contract. 4.