Clean Venture, Inc., B-284176, March 6, 2000

B-284176 Mar 06, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Whether the waste was "aerosol. Price was a less important. The RFP provided that the government would evaluate offerors' "[p]ast performance on references that are of a similar nature to the subject solicitation.". The offeror was to list the waste streams serviced. Was to discuss its qualifications and experience relative to each project. /2/ RFP Sec. The agency received initial proposals from eight firms and conducted a round of discussions with the six firms whose proposals were included in the competitive range. Which was 7 percent less than Safety-Kleen's next-lowest $6. These contracts were with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The contracting officer concluded that each contract was relatively small and simpler to perform than this RFP work. View Decision Matter of: Clean Venture, Inc. File: B-284176 Date: March 6, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Clean Venture, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Safety-Kleen, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. SP4400-99-R-0004, issued by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), for hazardous waste disposal services at various military facilities. Clean Venture protests the evaluation of its past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for an 18-month base period with 3 option years. RFP Sec. L.2, amend. 11 at 2. The RFP required the contractor to dispose of approximately 5.1 million pounds of waste during the base period and approximately 3.1 million pounds of waste during each option period. RFP Bid Schedule, as amended, at 22-89. The RFP required the contractor to pick up waste from 263 locations in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York and New Jersey. RFP, Pick-Up Point Locations, as amended, at 4-21. The locations represented various agencies within the Department of Defense, including components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard, and the Coast Guard. Id. The RFP described the anticipated waste stream based upon 10 general categories of hazardous waste. RFP Bid Schedule, as amended, at 22-89. Each category of waste contained multiple contract line items (CLIN) that further described the form of the waste, e.g., whether the waste was "aerosol," "small container" waste (stored in containers less than 5 gallons), "containerized" waste (stored in containers greater than 5 gallons), or "bulk" waste (stored in containers greater than 119 gallons or not stored in containers). Id.; RFP Sec. H.8, amend. 5, attach. 4, Waste Code CLIN Selection Criteria. The RFP also included CLINs requiring special hazardous waste support services, such as the removal of bulk waste using "roll-off" storage containers. RFP Bid Schedule, CLINs 6615DA-6615DE, amend. 11 Sec. C.50. The RFP provided for award based on a tradeoff between past performance, price and other factors. /1/ RFP Sec. M.13(a). The solicitation stated that, as between past performance and price, price was a less important, but still significant factor. RFP Sec. M.13(c). With regard to the past performance evaluation, the RFP provided that the government would evaluate offerors' "[p]ast performance on references that are of a similar nature to the subject solicitation." RFP Sec. M.13(d)(1)(i). For purposes of this evaluation, the RFP asked each offeror to provide information about its performance under contracts "for the same or similar services" during the past 2 years. RFP Sec. L.15(a). For each project submitted as a past performance reference in its proposal, the offeror was to list the waste streams serviced, the corresponding quantity removed, any related support services provided (such as roll-off services), and the annual cost of the work, and was to discuss its qualifications and experience relative to each project. /2/ RFP Sec. L.15(a)(1), (b); Agency Report, Tab 9, Protester's Past Performance Proposal, DRMS Form 1989. The agency received initial proposals from eight firms and conducted a round of discussions with the six firms whose proposals were included in the competitive range, including Safety-Kleen and Clean Venture. The agency then received final revised proposals from the six firms. Agency Report, Tab 4, Prenegotiation Briefing Memorandum, Sec. IIc., d., and Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 2-4. Clean Venture's proposal offered the lowest price for the total requirement, including options, in the amount of $6,157,300, which was 7 percent less than Safety-Kleen's next-lowest $6,619,806. Agency Report, Tab 16, Price Negotiation Memorandum, at 4. In terms of past performance, Safety-Kleen received a "good" rating, while Clean Venture received a "fair" rating. /3/ Id. Three contracts formed the basis for Clean Venture's "fair" past performance rating.