WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., B-281222, January 12,

B-281222 Jan 12, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that an awardee was given undue evaluation credit for proposing a solution to a sample task order because it allegedly copied the solution provided by its proposed subcontractor (which was also a successful competitor) is denied where the record does not support the protester's speculation that the solution was merely copied. WRS alleges that ECC received undue evaluation credit for its mission capability on the basis that its response to a sample task was allegedly copied from that of another offeror. The base period for performance was 3 years with two 1-year options. There are offerors in these categories technically capable of satisfying the requirement. The remaining two contracts will be awarded to technically qualified firms. View Decision Matter of: WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. File: B-281222 Date: January 12, 1999 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. (WRS) protests the award of a contract to Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. F42650-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) services for remediation, restoration, clean-up and long-term monitoring of environmental actions at Hill Air Force Base and surrounding Air Force property in Utah. WRS alleges that ECC received undue evaluation credit for its mission capability on the basis that its response to a sample task was allegedly copied from that of another offeror--Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. (MW). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on March 16, 1998, solicited offers for up to four indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts against which task orders would be issued. The base period for performance was 3 years with two 1-year options. The RFP provided that: The Government may award one contract to an 8(a) firm and one to a small business firm if the government determines, from the proposals, there are offerors in these categories technically capable of satisfying the requirement. The remaining two contracts will be awarded to technically qualified firms, regardless of size, using full and open competition. RFP Sec. M 3.0B. Section M of the RFP provided that awards would be made on a best value basis considering four evaluation factors: mission capability, performance confidence, proposal risk, and cost/price. Mission capability and performance confidence were considered to be of equal importance and more important than the remaining factors. Proposal risk was less important than the first two factors and more important than cost/price. Mission capability and proposal risk had identical subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) Design concept and construction work plan to the sample task order /1/; (2) O&M plan to the sample task order; (3) Personnel plan; and (4) Breadth of experience. RFP Sec. M 4.0-4.2. Twelve offers were received by the proposal submission date. The RFP in section L-1 at 1 incorporated a clause providing that awards could be made on the basis of initial proposals and, in fact, no discussions were held. In his selection decision, the source selection authority (SSA) noted that ECC, a firm specializing in construction, and MW, an architectural/engineering (A&E) firm, submitted virtually identical proposals and that each was listed as the primary subcontractor in the other's proposal. Source Selection Decision (SSD), Sept. 10, 1998, at 1. He further found that "their solution" to the sample task order exceeded the agency's requirements and noted that ECC had submitted the third lowest evaluated price while MW's price was sixth lowest. Id. As for the protester, the SSA noted the following: "[WRS] was competitive and its design met all requirements. However, its approach did not provide any added benefit to the Air Force and its price was the ninth lowest." Id. at 2. Awards were made to MW, ECC, and two other firms on September 11. Following an October 1 debriefing, WRS filed this protest on October 5. PROTEST AND ANALYSIS In its initial protest, WRS alleged that: (1) MW and ECC engaged in prohibited multiple bidding which prejudiced the government and other offerors; (2) the awards to reciprocal teaming partners MW and ECC would subvert competition for task orders; (3) the awards will tend to increase the scope and maximum value of the contracts; and (4) MW's potential conflicts of interest as a former A&E contractor at Hill Air Force Base will further complicate competition for task orders and cause the agency to incur additional expenses in tracking and preventing such conflicts.