Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC, B-291487; B-291487.2, December 16, 2002

Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC, B-291487; B-291487.2, December 16, 2002 TITLE: Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC, B-291487; B-291487.2, December 16, 2002 BNUMBER: B-291487; B-291487.2 DATE: December 16, 2002 ********************************************************************** Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC, B-291487; B-291487.2, December 16, 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: Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC File: B-291487; B-291487.2 Date: December 16, 2002 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., Raymond B. Fioravanti, Esq., and Shlomo D. Katz, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Cameron S. Hamrick, Esq., and Michael J. Farley, Esq., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, for Bechtel National, Inc., the intervenor. Joshua A. Kranzberg, Esq., and Bernadine F. McGuire, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. In a negotiated procurement for the design, construction, and operation of a chemical weapon destruction facility, agency reasonably assessed a significant weakness in the protester's proposal because the protester was reasonably found to not provide for total containment in the event of an explosion, as required by the solicitation. 2. In a cost realism evaluation where the agency evaluated numerous areas under which the protester's proposed approach was inadequate and understaffed, the agency properly used its independent government estimate and prior experience on similar projects as tools to assess the amount of additional staffing that would be required under the protester's proposed approach. 3. Protest of agency's cost/technical tradeoff is denied, where the solicitation stated that technical merit was more important than cost and the source selection authority reasonably found, with articulated reasons, that the awardee's technical merit outweighed the protester's cost advantage. 4. Agency reasonably adjusted protester's proposed costs upward in the competition for a cost‑reimbursement contract to account for evaluated understaffing and also reasonably determined in the technical evaluation that the understaffing was a weakness that adversely reflected upon the protester's understanding. DECISION Pueblo Environmental Solution, LLC[1] protests the award of a contract to Bechtel National, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAAA09-00-R-0156, issued by the Department of the Army for the design, construction, equipment acquisition and installation, systemization, pilot testing, operation, and closure of the Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. Pueblo Environmental challenges the agency's technical and cost evaluations and source selection decision. We deny the protest. In 1985, Congress required the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy the United States stockpile of chemical agents and munitions and to establish an organization within the Army to manage the agent destruction program. 50 U.S.C. S: 1521 (2000); Chemical Weapons: Lessons Learned, GAO-02-890, Sept. 10, 2002, at 4. In accordance with this direction, the Army was designated as the executive agent to implement the destruction of the United States stockpile of chemical agents and munitions, which includes the stockpile at the Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado. The stockpile at Pueblo Chemical Depot consists of mustard agent stored in projectiles and mortar rounds.[2] In 1996, DOD was directed by Congress to identify and demonstrate at least two alternative processes to incineration for the disposal of assembled chemical weapons. Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, P.L. 104‑208, S: 8065, 110 Stat. 3009-101 (1996). As a result, the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program was established to demonstrate several alternative technologies, including neutralization followed by biotreatment. Report to Congress, Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment Program, December 2001, available at .