B-299721.4, The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc., January 24, 2008

B-299721.4 Jan 24, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. challenges the award of a contract to Geo Marine, Inc. (GMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG3151-S-07-0001, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), for programmatic environmental assessments (PEA). Mangi asserts that the technical evaluation and source selection were flawed. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299721.4, The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc., January 24, 2008 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: The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. File: B-299721.4 Date: January 24, 2008 J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon & Tolle, LLP for the protester. Azine Farzami, Esq., Department of Agriculture, 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 Protest that evaluation of protester's proposal was flawed is denied where agency reasonably found proposal was confusing and contained numerous weaknesses and deficiencies. DECISION The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. challenges the award of a contract to Geo Marine, Inc. (GMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG3151-S-07-0001, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), for programmatic environmental assessments (PEA). Mangi asserts that the technical evaluation and source selection were flawed. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued in response to a lawsuit by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) that resulted in a negotiated settlement with FSA and called for an additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the effects of managed haying and grazing on lands involved in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 20 states identified in the settlement agreement.[1] The original environmental impact statement (EIS) on which the lawsuit was based was completed by Mangi. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract for 17 fixed'price and 2 reimbursable (travel and supplies) contract line items to supply all necessary labor, materials, and expertise to complete 20 individual PEAs. Proposals were to be evaluated under three equally-weighted factors--past performance, technical capability, and price--with the non-price factors combined of greater importance than price. Award was to be made on a –best value— basis. Four proposals, including Mangi's and GMI's, were received and evaluated. Mangi's, GMI's, and a third offeror's proposals were included in the competitive range (the fourth proposal was eliminated due to technical deficiencies). After requesting and evaluating final proposal revisions (FPR), the agency selected GMI's proposal as the best value and made award to that firm. Mangi protested the award and the agency took corrective action, reopening the competition and making a new source selection.[2] The three offerors in the competitive range were given the opportunity to make oral presentations and to submit new FPRs under the reopened competition. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed the FPRs and reached the following consensus ratings: Mangi GMI Offeror 3 Technical Capability Incapable Very capable Capable Past Performance Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Overall Capability Incapable Very capable Capable Price $612,858 $1,201,884 $1,014,220 Based on the TEP's evaluation, the contract specialist recommended GMI's proposal for award as the best value, noting, in part, its capability rating of very capable, GMI's experience on similar FSA projects, the absence of litigation in connection with GMI's over 800 projects, its clearly stated project management and project controls, the extremely qualified proposed personnel and industry experts, and the proven experience of the proposed subcontractors. Agency Report (AR), Tab 16, at 7. Award to Mangi was not recommended due to its incapable technical rating, and because its low price, together with its lack of technical understanding, was viewed as posing a performance risk. Id. at 6-7. The contracting officer, as source selection authority (SSA), adopted these recommendations and made award to GMI. After a debriefing, Mangi filed this protest. Mangi challenges the evaluation and award decision on numerous grounds, concluding that its proposal rating of incapable is not supported by the record. In Mangi's view, its proposal reasonably and adequately demonstrated the firm's experience and capability to perform the contract in all areas. We have considered all of Mangi's arguments and find that they provide no basis to object to the evaluation and award.