Mid Pacific Environmental, B-283309.2, January 10, 2000

B-283309.2 Jan 10, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that agency failed to perform proper best value determination is denied where the source selection authority considered technical evaluations. Asserts that the resulting best value determination is flawed and inadequately documented. Associated fuel dispensing storage was to include tanks for the 3 grades of government-provided fuel. A minimum of one automated bulk truck loading facility was required for the three products. Which was to be equipped with. The facility was to be configured to allow for future expansion. The dispensing pumps and islands were to be positioned to allow for unimpeded flow of vehicles and equipment to all pump positions and simultaneous use of all pumps. View Decision Matter of: Mid Pacific Environmental File: B-283309.2 Date: January 10, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Mid Pacific Environmental protests the award of a contract to Willbros Operating Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. SPO600-R-0009, issued by the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Defense Logistics Agency to provide and operate an automated fuel dispensing facility at the U.S. Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, 29 Palms, California. Mid Pacific questions the propriety of the agency's evaluation of the awardee's past performance, and asserts that the resulting best value determination is flawed and inadequately documented. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued October 2, 1998, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a 5-year base period with three 5-year option periods. RFP Sec. L74 and amend. 8 Sec. B34.01(6). The RFP, as amended, required that the facility consist of metered fuel pumps capable of fueling a minimum of 50 vehicles (trucks or equipment) per hour with JP8 (aviation), diesel, or unleaded gasoline, and 8 track-type vehicles (tanks) per hour with JP8 or diesel fuel. RFP amend. 8, Sec. B34.01(2). Associated fuel dispensing storage was to include tanks for the 3 grades of government-provided fuel. A minimum of one automated bulk truck loading facility was required for the three products, which was to be equipped with, among other things, overfill protection and spill containment. Id. The facility was to be configured to allow for future expansion. The dispensing pumps and islands were to be positioned to allow for unimpeded flow of vehicles and equipment to all pump positions and simultaneous use of all pumps. The track area was to have reinforced pivot pads for turning the tanks. Id. Sec. B34.01(5)(a)(3). The RFP also required that the contractor furnish computer equipment capable of interfacing with the agency's Fuels Automated System (FAS) software programs and designed to interface all receipts, bulk and retail issues and accounting transactions to the FAS. /1/ Id. Sec. B34.01(5)(a)(4). Finally, the RFP required that the contractor provide an auxiliary power source to enable the facility to remain operational 24 hours per day during power outages and emergency situations. Id. Sec. B34.01(5)(a)(13). At section M28.100, the RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose proposal represented the best overall value to the government, considering price and technical factors, which were equal in importance. As proposals became more equal in technical merit, price would become more important. RFP amend. 4, Secs. M28.100(a), (b). The amended RFP set forth three equally weighted technical evaluation factors, consisting of operational capability, past performance, and subcontracting. Id. Sec. M28.100(b)(ii). Proposals were to be rated under each factor as "exceptional," "very good," "satisfactory," "marginal," or "unsatisfactory." /2/ Id. Sec. M28.100(c). With respect to past performance, the RFP instructed each offeror to list all contracts and subcontracts (completed or in progress) for the last 3 years for DESC, other government agencies, or the private sector that were related to the work required here. RFP Sec. L2.31.100(b)(2)(ii). Each offeror was to provide for each contract, the contract type and dollar amount, a brief description of the work, and the point of contact for the contract. Id. The solicitation stated that the agency had the option to consider information from these sources, from the proposal, or from other sources in order to make an accurate assessment of the contractor's past performance. Id.; RFP amend. 4, Sec. M28.100(b)(ii). With respect to the price evaluation, the RFP provided that the agency reserved the right to award to other than the low evaluated offer and stated that the low offer would be determined by computing the total cost in current year dollars for the initial 5-year base period plus the cost for the three 5-year option periods. RFP amend. 4, Sec. M28.100(b)(i). The RFP also provided for a 10 percent small disadvantaged business cost preference. RFP Sec.