Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2; B-290125.3, December 18, 2002

Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2; B-290125.3, December 18, 2002 TITLE: Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2; B-290125.3, December 18, 2002 BNUMBER: B-290125.2; B-290125.3 DATE: December 18, 2002 ********************************************************************** Jacobs COGEMA, LLC, B-290125.2; B-290125.3, December 18, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Jacobs COGEMA, LLC File: B-290125.2; B-290125.3 Date: December 18, 2002 Marc F. Efron, Esq., Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., and J. Catherine Kunz, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for the protester. Richard O. Duvall, Esq., Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Uranium Disposition Services, LLC, an intervenor. Gena E. Cadieux, Esq., Beth Kelly, Esq., Joseph A. Lenhard, Esq., and Mary D. Copeland, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Tania Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Statutory provision enacted after proposals were evaluated but before source selection decision was made, which directs Secretary of Energy to, *notwithstanding any other provision of law,* ask offerors to confirm or reinstate their offers within a certain time, select for award of a contract the *best value of proposals* for the solicitation's scope of work within 30 days of enactment, and negotiate with the awardee for certain contract modifications, does not remove the procurement from the coverage of the ordinarily applicable procurement laws and regulations, including those governing General Accounting Office jurisdiction over a protest of the procurement, where the statutory provision's requirements are not inconsistent with these ordinarily applicable procurement laws and regulations. 2. Protest that contracting agency improperly evaluated offerors' technical and cost proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; source selection decision based upon the evaluation results was also reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and well supported. DECISION Jacobs COGEMA, LLC (JC) protests the award of a contract to Uranium Disposition Services, LLC (UDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-RP05-01OR22717, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the design, construction, and operation of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) conversion facilities at Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. JC primarily argues that DOE improperly evaluated offerors' technical and cost proposals and made an improper source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND Beginning with the development of the atomic bomb and continuing over the last half of the twentieth century, the United States processed large quantities of uranium using gaseous diffusion to produce enriched uranium suitable for use as fuel for nuclear reactors or military applications. The gaseous diffusion process uses uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride, or UF6, and *depleted* UF6, or DUF6, is a byproduct of the enrichment process. During that process, the DUF6 is transferred as a gas to large steel cylinders (typically 12 feet long by 4 feet in diameter), cooled to convert the gas to solids in the cylinders, and stored in the cylinders. DOE is responsible for the government's inventory of approximately 700,000 metric tons of DUF6 stored in approximately 57,000 cylinders. Since the 1950s, such material has been stored at the government's gaseous diffusion plants in Paducah and Portsmouth, and at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Since 1990, DOE's cylinder management has focused on the ongoing surveillance and maintenance of the cylinders containing DUF6, which involves cylinder inspections, recoatings, and relocations to ensure that DUF6 is safely stored pending its ultimate disposition.[1] Id. S: II.B.6. In 1998, Congress passed the McConnell Act which, among other things, directed DOE to prepare a plan to construct facilities in Paducah and Portsmouth to treat and recycle the DUF6. Pub. L. No. 105-204, S: 1, 112 Stat. 681, 682 (1998). In March 1999, DOE provided its initial plan to Congress and issued a Request for Expressions of Interest to industry. DOE submitted its final plan in July 1999, and issued the instant solicitation on October 31, 2000. DOE's overarching requirement is to convert its DUF6 inventory to a more stable chemical form and to reuse or dispose of the converted product and byproducts.