B-299576; B-299576.2, Meeks Disposal Corporation, June 28, 2007

B-299576; B-299576.2, Meeks Disposal Corporation, June 28, 2007 TITLE: B-299576; B-299576.2, Meeks Disposal Corporation, June 28, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299576; B-299576.2 DATE: June 28, 2007 *************************************************************** B-299576; B-299576.2, Meeks Disposal Corporation, June 28, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. No party requested redactions; we are therefore releasing the decision in its entirety. Decision Matter of: Meeks Disposal Corporation File: B-299576; B-299576.2 Date: June 28, 2007 J. Bryan Plumlee, Esq., Paul R. Schmidt, Esq., and David B. Oakley, Esq., Huff, Poole & Mahoney, PC, for the protester. Joseph M. Goldstein, Esq., and Michael J. McAllister, Esq., Shutts & Bowen LLP, for Dorado Services, Inc., an intervenor. Damon A. Martin, Esq., and David L. Nimmich, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably determined that protester's proposal was unacceptable under technical approach/management factor is denied where the solicitation required that the proposals include a description of the methods and procedures the offeror would use to recruit and retain experienced personnel and managers, but protester provided only a brief and general statement on the subject. DECISION Meeks Disposal Corporation, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Dorado Services by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-06-R-1131, issued to procure refuse collection and recycling services at specified Navy facilities in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. Meeks objects that its proposal was improperly evaluated as technically unacceptable, and that the Navy based the evaluation on criteria that were not disclosed in the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Navy issued the RFP on September 13, 2006, seeking proposals to provide these waste management services under what the agency terms a "combination firm-fixed price/indefinite quantity-indefinite delivery"[1] contract to perform a number of waste management services for a base period and four annual options. RFP at 74. The RFP detailed four evaluation factors: technical approach/management, corporate experience, past performance, and price. RFP at 71. After generally advising offerors to submit a "precise, detailed, and complete" proposal, RFP at 70, the RFP went on to explain the evaluation of the technical approach/management factor using very similar language in both sections L and M. Specifically, each offeror was instructed to clearly demonstrate its understanding of and approach to accomplishing the complexity and magnitude of service requirements set forth in the performance objectives and standards of the Performance Work Statement by submitting a narrative statement . . . Each of the four paragraphs below must be included in the narrative and tabbed in the technical proposal and discussed separately for each technical annex of the RFP. (a) Phase-In Transition Plan . . . (b) Describe what methods and procedures you will use to recruit and retain experienced personnel and managers in regards to this project. (c) Workforce Management . . . (d) Government-Furnished Property . . . RFP amend. 12, at 5-6. The evaluation scheme provided that proposals would be assessed as "acceptable," "less than acceptable,"[2] or "unacceptable" under each factor (with the addition of a "neutral" rating for the past performance factor). In effect, a rating of "less than acceptable" reflected a proposal that was unacceptable as tendered, but susceptible of becoming acceptable through revisions after discussions. Award was to be made to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. RFP amend. 12, at 11-13.[3] The agency received five proposals, including those submitted by Dorado and Meeks. The Navy evaluators prepared a technical evaluation report to reflect their views of each offeror's proposal under each evaluation factor. The evaluators rated Meeks less than acceptable under the technical approach/management, experience, and past performance factors, resulting in an overall rating of less than acceptable. Dorado was rated acceptable under all factors, and acceptable overall. Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Report at 3.