Allied Technology Group, Inc., B-282739, August 19, 1999

B-282739 Aug 19, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is denied where the agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and where the agency reasonably selected for award a higher technically rated. 14 percent higher priced proposal consistent with the solicitation's terms which provided that technical evaluation factors were significantly more important than price/cost. ATG asserts that the evaluation of proposals was neither reasonable nor consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme and that the agency's tradeoff decision was unreasonable. Contractors are to perform hazardous. The RFP provided for awards to the responsible offerors whose proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the Government. View Decision Matter of: Allied Technology Group, Inc. File: B-282739 Date: August 19, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Allied Technology Group, Inc. (ATG) protests the award of a contract to Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DACA05-99-R-0010, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, for environmental abatement projects in its South Pacific Division (SPD). ATG asserts that the evaluation of proposals was neither reasonable nor consistent with the RFP's evaluation scheme and that the agency's tradeoff decision was unreasonable. We deny the protest. On January 15, 1999, the agency issued the RFP for indefinite-delivery/combination fixed-price and cost reimbursement task order Pre-Placed Remedial Action Contracts (PRAC). RFP at L-15. Under these contracts, contractors are to perform hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW), ordnance and explosive (OE), and asbestos and lead-based paint abatement within the Corps' SPD, which includes all or portions of the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Utah. RFP amend. 2, at C-1. The RFP provided for the separate award of three contracts--one for award on an unrestricted basis, one set aside for a qualified small business, and a third for a qualified 8(a) contractor. RFP at M-1. This protest concerns only the small business award. The RFP provided for awards to the responsible offerors whose proposals were determined to be most advantageous to the Government. Id. at M-14. In making these determinations, the RFP stated that the technical evaluation factors, when combined, would be considered significantly more important than price/cost. Id. The RFP further stated that the Government was more concerned with obtaining superior technical, management, quality, and/or past performance features than with making awards at the lowest overall prices/costs. Id. As relevant here, the RFP listed the following four technical evaluation factors: (1) oral presentation; (2) key personnel and organizational structure (offerors and subcontractors); (3) experience with HTRW remediation projects; and (4) past performance/quality. RFP amend. 1, at M-16-17. The first three factors were equally weighted; the fourth factor was approximately four-fifths the weight of the first factor. Id. at M-16. /1/ Technical proposals would be evaluated by assigning points which corresponded to the following adjectival ratings: unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, very good, and excellent. Points and adjectival ratings would be supported by narratives of the strengths and weaknesses in an offeror's proposal. Agency Report, Tab 3, Source Selection Evaluation Plan, at 3-4. On February 23, the agency received proposals from ten offerors, including ATG and ECC, which were eligible for the small business award at issue here; these proposals were referred to the source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The SSEB compiled consensus scores for each of the evaluation factors and prepared a recommendation for the source selection authority (SSA). The SSEB determined that 6 of the 10 small business proposals were technically acceptable, with the proposals of ECC and ATG receiving the two highest technical scores--[Deleted] and [Deleted] points, respectively, out of a possible [Deleted]. Agency Report, Tab 7, Memorandum from the SSEB to the SSA 1 (Apr. 23, 1999). Of the technically acceptable small business proposals, ATG submitted the second low price and ECC submitted the highest price. Agency Report, Tab 8, Cost Proposal Evaluation Report, Mar. 26, 1999, at 2. The SSEB advised the SSA that three of the proposals, although technically acceptable, were lower in technical score and higher in price than ATG's; accordingly, these proposals were eliminated from the competition. Agency Report, Tab 9, SSEB Best Value Comparative Analysis, Apr. 30, 1999, at 2. The SSEB then compared ECC's highest technically rated, highest priced proposal with ATG's second highest technically rated, lower priced proposal. Id. at 4-6.