B-297294, Shaw Environmental, Inc., December 2, 2005

B-297294 Dec 02, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Shaw Environmental, Inc. protests its elimination from the competitive range and the award of a contract to Clayton Group Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91ZLK-05-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Army for environmental restoration services in California. Shaw asserts that the agency improperly concluded that its proposal was technically unacceptable, misled it, and improperly failed to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297294, Shaw Environmental, Inc., December 2, 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: Shaw Environmental, Inc. File: B-297294 Date: December 2, 2005 Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., and David T. Hickey, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for the protester. Capt. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation was clear on applicable requirements and responses to offerors' questions were consistent with those requirements, agency had no duty to amend the solicitation to clarify protester's unilateral misinterpretation of solicitation. 2. Agency was not required to hold discussions to allow protester to make its proposal technically acceptable where solicitation advised offerors of the possibility of award without discussions. DECISION Shaw Environmental, Inc. protests its elimination from the competitive range and the award of a contract to Clayton Group Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91ZLK-05-R-0009, issued by the Department of the Army for environmental restoration services in California. Shaw asserts that the agency improperly concluded that its proposal was technically unacceptable, misled it, and improperly failed to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, for a period of 10 years, to provide environmental restoration services to remediate the Joint Forces Training Base at Los Alamitos and CampRoberts in California. The work includes both remediation and long-term management at 15 sites at the installations. The largest single component of the requirement and subject of this protest is the Los Alamitos Landfill. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors--technical, management, and price. The technical factor was divided into three subfactors--technical approach, project schedule, and personnel qualifications--and the management factor was divided into four subfactors--management plan, past experience, proof of insurability, and subcontracting plan. A proposal had to be evaluated as technically acceptable under all factors and subfactors in order to be considered for award. Price was to be evaluated on the basis of the cost/price analysis techniques in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 15.404. The RFP advised that award could be made on the basis of initial proposals, without discussions, and that offerors thus should ensure that their initial proposals contained their most favorable terms and best efforts. RFP sect. M.1. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the lowest'priced, technically acceptable proposal. Four offerors, including Shaw and Clayton (the incumbent contractor), submitted proposals, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation board (TEB).[1] Based on a review of initial proposals, the TEB concluded that only Clayton's proposal was technically acceptable. Shaw's proposal was rejected because its technical approach for the landfill was found technically unacceptable. Based on the evaluation of initial proposals, and without conducting discussions, the contracting officer, as source selection authority, awarded the contract to Clayton. After receipt of a written debriefing, Shaw filed this protest. BACKGROUND This protest centers on Shaw's failure to comply with one provision of the performance work statement (PWS). The provision at issue describes the condition of the landfill, noting specifically that the groundwater under it had been affected by landfill leachate, and that landfill material had been in contact with the top of the aquifer and continued to cause significant groundwater contamination. The PWS provision also provided as follows: Formal closure of this landfill will require compliance with State regulations in which it is necessary to produce and sustain a five foot difference between the depth of the waste and the water table. There may be numerous mechanisms by which this may be achieved. PWS para. 6.2.3. The applicable state regulation, Title 27, California Code of Regulations (CCR), sect.