Johnson Controls, Inc., B-282326, June 28, 1999

B-282326 Jun 28, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest challenging technical evaluation of protester's proposal for energy savings services and the adequacy of the agency's discussions with the protester is denied. Where the evaluation was reasonable and the discussions were adequate to lead the protester into those areas of its proposal that were considered deficient. 2. Protest challenging the agency's award decisions is denied where selections were based upon a technical evaluation and price analysis that were both reasonable and consistent with the request for proposals' stated evaluation scheme. The protester contends that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable. That discussions with it were inadequate. Is charged with reducing the cost of government by advancing energy efficiency and the use of solar and other renewable energy. View Decision Matter of: Johnson Controls, Inc File: B-282326 Date: June 28, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Johnson Controls, Inc. protests the award of six energy savings performance contracts (ESPC) by the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP01-98EE73584. Essentially, the protester contends that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable, that discussions with it were inadequate, and that the evaluation did not result in selection of the most advantageous offers. Protest at 2. We deny the protest. The DOE's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), under the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is charged with reducing the cost of government by advancing energy efficiency and the use of solar and other renewable energy. To help federal agencies reduce energy use, Title VIII, Sec. 801 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 8287(a)(1) (1994), authorizes agencies to enter into ESPCs. FEMP has divided the country into six regions and awarded a set of multiple-award ESPCs, one for each region. Any federal agency may order from those contracts. /1/ Agency Report at 1-2. Under an ESPC, the contractor typically provides for financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance for energy saving devices and systems. The contractor recoups its costs out of the energy cost savings and reduced maintenance costs generated by the energy saving devices and systems the contractor has installed. Through private financing, contractors provide, at no capital cost to the government, all labor, materials, and equipment necessary to reduce energy consumption at specific sites covered by delivery orders placed against their indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity ESPCs. The contractor must guarantee a certain level of energy savings. The total of contractor payments and post-installation energy costs cannot exceed the amount that the agency would have paid for utilities without an ESPC. Id. Issued on November 25, 1997, the RFP requested offers for providing energy saving services to federal agencies in the Mid-Atlantic region on the basis of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. RFP Cover Letter at 1; RFP Sec. B.4. The RFP contemplated multiple contract awards (i.e., as many as six) and stated that services would be provided in response to delivery orders issued by the contracting officer on either a competitive or noncompetitive basis, depending upon the circumstances. RFP Cover Letter at 4; RFP Secs. H.13, L.24. Offers were to include plans for implementing energy conservation measures (ECM) at two specified sites--the National Gallery of Art and the National Agricultural Library. RFP Secs. L.22, L.29.2. The RFP incorporated a site data package for each site, describing the conditions (such as energy use and existing equipment), upon which offers were to be based. The RFP specified that offers should include narratives addressing the technical approach for the required technology categories and specified facilities within the site data packages only, using technical data packages obtained from the technical library exclusively. RFP Cover Letter at 5; RFP Sec. 29.2. The RFP stated that work at the two sites would be required under the first delivery orders placed against the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts. RFP Cover Letter at 4. The site data packages identified required technology categories that the offerors were to consider. For each ECM proposed, offers were to include a detailed description, identifying the proposed equipment and annual energy savings, an analysis of the expected energy savings, and the proposed price. Offers were also to include the rationale for proposing each ECM, as well as a description of any required technology categories for which the offeror concluded that an ECM would not be cost-effective.