B-296176.2, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., December 9, 2005

B-296176.2 Dec 09, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Clean Venture, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-04-P (GG)-0061, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to acquire comprehensive chemical and low-level radioactive waste management services for NIH's main campus. Clean Harbors maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals in the area of past performance. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-296176.2, Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., December 9, 2005 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: Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. File: B-296176.2 Date: December 9, 2005 William E. Hughes III, Esq., Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC, for the protester. Michael H. Payne, Esq., Payne Hackenbracht & Sullivan, for Clean Venture, Inc., an intervenor. Doris Gibson, Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that past performance evaluation was unreasonable is sustained where record shows that agency made no attempt during evaluation to assess the relevance of the offerors' prior contracts, notwithstanding solicitation term requiring such an assessment. DECISION Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Clean Venture, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-04-P (GG)-0061, issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to acquire comprehensive chemical and low-level radioactive waste management services for NIH's main campus. Clean Harbors maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals in the area of past performance.[1] We sustain the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract for comprehensive chemical and low'level radioactive waste management services at NIH's main campus in support of the agency's biomedical research program. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the overall –best value.— For evaluation purposes, the RFP advised that the agency would consider the following three criteria, in descending order of importance: technical, cost/price and past performance. (The technical criterion included 11 subcriteria that are not relevant to this protest.) The RFP advised that the agency would only evaluate the past performance of concerns deemed to have a likelihood of receiving award based on their technical proposals. Offerors were to provide a list of five contracts completed within the last 2 years, as well as all current contracts similar in nature to the solicited requirement. Past performance would be evaluated based on information obtained from references included by the firms in their proposals, as well as relevant information obtained from other sources known to the government, for purposes of assessing the performance risk associated with each offeror. RFP at 120. The RFP further provided: –The government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror's performance.— Id. The agency received numerous proposals. After establishing an initial competitive range of three proposals, the agency engaged in discussions and obtained revised proposals. The agency then further limited the competitive range to two firms, the protester and the awardee, and obtained final proposal revisions (FPR). On the basis of the FPRs, the agency made award to Clean Venture, finding that its and Clean Harbors' proposals were technically equal, that both firms had satisfactory past performance, and that the Clean Venture proposal offered a cost savings over the Clean Harbors proposal. Clean Harbors filed a protest with our Office challenging the award decision. In response to that protest, the agency proposed to reevaluate the proposals; on the basis of this corrective action, Clean Harbors withdrew its earlier protest (B-296176, May 3, 2005). Thereafter, the agency reevaluated the proposals, concluded again that the firms' past performance was equal, and affirmed its original source selection decision. Clean Harbors again protests the decision to make award to Clean Venture. Clean Harbors, the incumbent for the requirement, asserts that the agency misevaluated the offerors' past performance information, specifically, that the agency improperly failed to take into consideration the relevance of the offerors' past performance references, and that this was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation.