Envirosolve--Costs, B-294420.3, February 17, 2005

B-294420.3 Feb 17, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Envirosolve requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest concerning request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-04-R-0003, issued by Drug Enforcement Agency, Department of Justice, for the disposal and management of hazardous waste seized by law enforcement agencies at clandestine drug laboratories. The protest, filed on July 31, 2004, and supplemented on September 13, challenged the agencys exclusion of Envirosolves proposal from the competitive range. We deny the request. View Decision B-294420.3, Envirosolve--Costs, February 17, 2005 Decision Matter of: Envirosolve--Costs File: B-294420.3 Date: February 17, 2005 Carolyn Callaway, Esq., for the protester. James E. Hicks, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester is not entitled to the costs of filing and pursuing its protest where the agency cancelled the solicitation shortly after the protesters filing of its supplemental protest, and the initial protest was not clearly meritorious. DECISION Envirosolve requests that we recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest concerning request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-04-R-0003, issued by Drug Enforcement Agency, Department of Justice, for the disposal and management of hazardous waste seized by law enforcement agencies at clandestine drug laboratories. The protest, filed on July 31, 2004, and supplemented on September 13, challenged the agencys exclusion of Envirosolves proposal from the competitive range. We deny the request. The RFP provided for the award of up to 18 time-and-materials contracts, based on contract areas, for the required services. The contract areas were either states, groups of states, or portions of states, chosen based on the amount of waste-generating activity in those areas. Contracting Officers Statement at 1. The RFP also listed for each contract area a level of activity derived from historical data, and a contract center or centers. The agency received proposals from 10 offerors, including Envirosolve, the incumbent contractor. The agency found Envirosolves proposal, which was submitted for each of the 18 contracts that could be awarded, deficient for a number of reasons. In this regard, the agency determined that the proposal did not adequately describe Envirosolves technical approach or propose adequate resources for accomplishing the required services. For example, the agency found that in a number of instances Envirosolve proposed response facilities that were not located in the contract centers set forth in the RFP, and downgraded Envirosolves proposal accordingly. The agency also found that Envirosolves proposal did not include a written protocol addressing Envirosolves problem-solving capabilities as required by the RFP, that the proposals small disadvantaged business plan was lacking, and that there was insufficient information provided in the proposal regarding certain of Envirosolves proposed treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The agency excluded Envirosolves proposal from the competitive range, and provided the protester with a letter detailing the agencys rationale for eliminating the protesters proposal from the competition. In its initial protest, filed with our Office on August 1, 2004, Envirosolve challenged the reasonableness of the agencys determinations as reflected in the agencys letter informing Envirosolve that its proposal had been excluded from the competitive range. Envirosolves primary argument in its initial protest was that its proposal should not have been downgraded for failing to propose response facilities located in the contract centers listed in the solicitation. On September 1, the agency submitted its report responding to Envirosolves protest. In its report, the agency provided detailed explanations regarding each aspect of the agencys evaluation that had been challenged by Envirosolve in its protest letter. The report maintained that the agencys determinations were reasonably based, and that Envirosolves protest should be denied. For example, the agency argued that its downgrading of Envirosolves proposal because in a number of instances it failed to propose response facilities in the contract centers set forth in the RFP was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. The agency noted that much of Envirosolves protest effectively constituted a challenge to the agencys choice of contract centers, and that such arguments, raised for the first time after the protesters exclusion from the competitive range, were untimely.