Ventura Petroleum Services, Inc., B-281278, January 21, 1999

B-281278 Jan 21, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Lower-priced proposal alleging that proposed price is unreasonably low is denied where the agency reasonably determined that the proposed price was reasonable on the basis that the awardee. Which was experienced and knowledgeable with respect to the work to be performed. Proposed a price that was substantially comparable to the government estimate and to another offeror's price. 2. Protester's contention that agency misevaluated its proposal with respect to past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation factors. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value in accordance with solicitation factors and subfactors. View Decision Matter of: Ventura Petroleum Services, Inc. File: B-281278 Date: January 21, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Ventura Petroleum Services, Inc. (VPS) protests the award of a contract to Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N68711-98-R-4008, issued by the Department of the Navy for hazardous waste management services for the Naval Air Weapons Station, Point Mugu, California. VPS challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and the reasonableness of the awardee's proposed price. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued February 20, 1998, provided for the procurement of various hazardous waste management services through the award of a fixed-price contract with an indefinite-quantity component for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value in accordance with solicitation factors and subfactors. RFP Sec. L.2(f). The RFP further stated that the government intended to award a contract without discussions. RFP Sec. L.2(f)(4). The RFP identified price and technical as evaluation factors to be weighted approximately equal, with price to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness. RFP Sec. M.1(a). The technical evaluation factors consisted of past performance, key personnel and commitment to small business, in descending order of importance. Under the past performance subfactor, the RFP required offerors to provide information on past performance in the public and/or private sector, including any proposed subcontractors' past performance over the last 3 years in providing the services required by the solicitation. The RFP also stated that the government may contact clients other than those identified. RFP Sec. M.1(II)(1)(a). VPS submitted written questions concerning the solicitation requirements 15 days after a March 11 cutoff date for questions and only a day before the amended closing date for receipt of proposals. VPS's questions were responded to orally by the agency on March 27. Agency Report at 2. The agency received five proposals by the March 27 amended closing date, which were evaluated as follows: Technical Technical Risk Price Rank Rating Laidlaw Exceptional Low/None $2,780,150 VPS Good Low/None $8,690,996 Offeror A Acceptable Med/Low $9,879,200 Offeror B Capable Medium $3,514,982 Offeror C Capable High $3,531,537 Agency Report, Tab 7, Business Clearance Memorandum, at 5. The government estimate for this effort was $3,669,815. Agency Report at 1. The Laidlaw proposal, ranked first technically, received an exceptional rating under all technical evaluation factors. The evaluators determined that Laidlaw had notable strengths in that its past and current contract work on government contracts as a prime contractor was very similar to the work required by the solicitation. Agency Report, Tab 7, at 6. Laidlaw's references stated that Laidlaw's timeliness, quality control, cooperation and customer satisfaction were above average and it received exceptional ratings for all factors. Id. The evaluators especially noted Laidlaw's above average performance and outstanding customer service in identifying and fixing major compliance problems at Public Works Center San Francisco. The VPS proposal, ranked second technically, was considered by the evaluators as having done an excellent job of explaining VPS's past performance at Point Mugu as the subcontractor for the waste management services contract, and as demonstrating knowledge of the work requirements since VPS has performed them for the last 5 years. However, the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR) for the hazardous waste portion of the Point Mugu contract stated that although VPS's timeliness and quality control had improved with time, its timeliness and correction of inventory reports on the hazardous waste database were slow at the beginning of the contract. Id. VPS's performance was considered acceptable, but the COTR believed that VPS's cost proposal was moderately inflated and not reasonable.