B-299229.4, MELE Associates, Inc., July 25, 2007

B-299229.4 Jul 25, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MELE Associates, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-PR52-05NA26986, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for services to enhance and accelerate programs for the location, removal, and protection of nuclear and radiological materials stored at foreign or domestic facilities and at risk for theft or misuse. MELE argues that DOE improperly evaluated its proposal under the technical and corporate experience factors. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299229.4, MELE Associates, Inc., July 25, 2007 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: MELE Associates, Inc. File: B-299229.4 Date: July 25, 2007 Pamela J. Mazza, Esq., Jonathan T. Williams, Esq., and Isaias Alba IV, Esq., PilieroMazza, for the protester. Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq., and Michael D. Maloney, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, PC, for Professional Project Services, Inc., an intervenor. H. Jack Shearer, Esq., Young H. Cho, Esq., and Ida Hernandez Sedillo, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated proposal under technical approach factor is denied where, although proposal offered to comply with solicitation requirements, it did not explain how protester would do so, and agency otherwise reasonably determined that proposal evidenced lack of understanding of requirements. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated proposal under corporate experience factor is denied where agency reasonably determined that proposal did not demonstrate that protester had experience performing solicitation tasks. DECISION MELE Associates, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-PR52-05NA26986, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for services to enhance and accelerate programs for the location, removal, and protection of nuclear and radiological materials stored at foreign or domestic facilities and at risk for theft or misuse. MELE argues that DOE improperly evaluated its proposal under the technical and corporate experience factors. We deny the protest. The RFP anticipated the award of multiple contracts under which firms would be able to compete for future task orders--which may be fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, or cost-plus-incentive-fee in nature--in four areas listed in the performance work statement (PWS). The RFP provided for award on a –best value— basis considering technical approach to two sample task orders, corporate experience, past performance, and cost; the non-cost factors combined were significantly more important than cost. RFP sect. M, at 1. Seven proposals were received and were evaluated by a source selection evaluation board (SSEB). The SSEB assigned proposals an adjectival rating (excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory) under each non-cost factor based on the proposals' evaluated strengths and weaknesses. Agency Report (AR) at 5-6. MELE's proposal was rated unsatisfactory for technical approach, marginal for experience, and excellent for past performance, and offered the lowest cost. AR at 7. DOE ultimately made three awards. MELE was not awarded a contract. MELE maintains that DOE improperly evaluated its proposal under the technical approach and corporate experience factors. In reviewing a protest against an agency's proposal evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. Phillips Med. Sys. Of N. Am., B-293945.2, June 17, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 129 at 2. We have reviewed the record and find that MELE's arguments are without merit. We discuss several of those arguments below. TECHNICAL APPROACH TO SAMPLE TASK ORDER 1 Disposal Under Sample Task Order 1 (STO1), offerors were instructed to develop a plan to prepare, transport, and dispose of devices containing cesium-137 and cobalt-60 sources found in California, WashingtonState, and New Jersey. STO1 at 2. The devices were to be disposed of as radioactive waste at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) disposal facility. Id.The plan was to provide for completing recovery and shipping of the New Jersey and Washington devices within 180 days, and of the California device within 30 days, after –award— of the task order.