B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827; B-283828, December 27, 1999

B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827; B-283828, December 27, 1999 TITLE: B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827; B-283828, December 27, 1999 BNUMBER: B-283827; B-283828 DATE: December 27, 1999 ********************************************************************** B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc., B-283827; B-283828, December 27, 1999 Decision Matter of: B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc. File: B-283827; B-283828 Date: December 27, 1999 Michael A. Gordon, Esq., Holmes, Schwartz & Gordon, for the protester. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Janet E. Sloan, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests are denied where the agency's evaluations of proposals were reasonable and consistent with the solicitations' evaluation schemes, which provided that an offeror's capability was more important than price, and where the contracting officer reasonably selected for award higher priced proposals of incumbent contractors based on the higher capability ratings given to these contractors. DECISION B. Diaz Sanitation, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Donato Marangi, Inc. (DMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAG60-99-R-0042 (RFP-0042), issued by the United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, New York, for the collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials. [1] Diaz also protests the award of a contract to Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) under RFP No. DAAG60-99-R-0047 (RFP-0047), issued by the USMA for the collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste at the former Stewart Army Subpost (STAS), New Windsor, Orange County, New York. Diaz essentially challenges the agency's best value determinations resulting in awards to higher priced incumbent contractors. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND Each RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract. RFP-0042 (contract value--over $3 million) was for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods and RFP-0047 (contract value--over $140,000) was for a 1-year base period only. CO Statement-0042 at 2, 6; CO Statement-0047 at 1, 6. The RFPs contained the same evaluation and award methodologies. More specifically, each RFP provided that the award would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value on the basis of (1) the merits of the proposal (technical acceptability and price reasonableness) [2] and (2) the offeror's capability. RFP-0042 at 712; RFP-0047 at 36. As relevant here, an offeror's capability would be determined based on the firm's organizational experience and its organizational past performance in providing refuse and recycling services of "similar cost and complexity." RFP-0042 at 712; RFP-0047 at 37. For experience, each RFP provided that the agency would evaluate the "breadth," "depth," and "relevance" of an offeror's experience to the refuse and recycling services required by the respective solicitations. RFP-0042 at 713; RFP-0047 at 37. For past performance, each RFP provided that the agency would "contact some" of each offeror's customer references. Id. [3] Each RFP provided that in determining the best value, an offeror's capability was more important than price, and in making comparisons between offerors, if one offeror had the better capability and higher price, then the agency would determine whether the marginal difference in capability was worth the marginal difference in price. If the agency considered the better capability to be worth the higher price, then the higher priced proposal of the more capable offeror would be determined to represent the best value and that offeror would receive the award. RFP-0042 at 713; RFP-0047 at 37. For each RFP, Diaz submitted a "Partial List of Pertinent Contract Experience," in which the firm listed 15 clients (10 condominiums/other multi-unit residential complexes, a mobile home park, 3 school complexes, and a residential community with 400 separate units) for which it has provided "container" or "curbside" service from 1980 through the current time. Agency Report (AR)-0042, Tab IV.B; AR-0047, Tab IV.B. Diaz's three most current contracts were for "container" service at three condominium complexes and ranged in annual value from approximately $10,000 to $40,000. Id. Under RFP-0042, the source selection evaluation board (SSEB) contacted three of the references listed by Diaz. AR-0042, Tab IV.B; AR-0042, Tab IV.F.1. [4] The first reference was for a current contract being performed by Diaz (annual value--approximately $10,000) for container service at an 80-unit condominium complex; this reference rated the firm's overall performance as exceptional and stated that he would pay a price premium to contract again with Diaz.