B-299880, Kemron Environmental Services, Inc., September 7, 2007

B-299880 Sep 07, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-R4-06-10166, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for superfund emergency and rapid response services for the removal of hazardous substances. Kemron argues that, because EPA disclosed certain of its price information to WRS in the course of the procurement, the agency should be required either to cancel the solicitation and resolicit for its needs or award a contract to Kemron. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299880, Kemron Environmental Services, Inc., September 7, 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: Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. File: B-299880 Date: September 7, 2007 Kevin R. Armbruster, Esq., and Jason C. Grech, Esq., Cushing, Morris, Armbruster & Montgomery, LLP, for the protester. Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, 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 Protest that agency's inadvertent disclosure of protester's price information, which was limited in scope, resulted in unfair competition is denied where record does not demonstrate that protester was competitively harmed. DECISION Kemron Environmental Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-R4-06-10166, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for superfund emergency and rapid response services for the removal of hazardous substances. Kemron argues that, because EPA disclosed certain of its price information to WRS in the course of the procurement, the agency should be required either to cancel the solicitation and resolicit for its needs or award a contract to Kemron. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award of up to three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity time and material contracts to the lowest-cost, technically acceptable offerors. RFP sect. M at 1. The RFP provided a list of 15 labor categories, with the maximum number of hours required annually for each, and 73 items of equipment, with the maximum number of days annually that each piece of equipment would be in use. RFP sect. L at 5'8. With respect to price, offerors were required to propose a loaded fixed hourly rate for each identified labor category, and a fixed daily use rate for each piece of equipment. RFP sect. L at 30, 31. In evaluating price, the agency would multiply the loaded rates by the estimated maximum number of labor hours, and the daily equipment rates by the estimated maximum number of days, and add the resulting prices to arrive at a total price. RFP sect. L at 31. On March 6, 2007, the agency sent each offeror in the competitive range an e-mail containing discussion items to address. On March 7, WRS advised the agency by telephone that it had received Kemron's discussion letter. WRS explained that the company treasurer received the e-mail and started scanning it, but noticed that the letter referred to companies that were not named in its proposal. Agency Report (AR) at 2. At that point, the treasurer looked at the top of the letter and found that it was addressed to Kemron. After telephoning the company president for instructions on how to proceed, he sent the e'mail back to the agency and destroyed all copies. The treasurer advised EPA that he did not recall any specific information from the letter. Subsequently, on March 19, the agency received revised proposals and, on April 5, final proposal revisions (FPR). After evaluating the FPRs, the agency selected the three lowest-priced proposals for award, including WRS's, which was the second lowest priced proposal. Kemron's proposal was fourth-low, and the firm complains that it was harmed by the disclosure of its pricing.[1] The disclosure of proprietary or source selection information, including an offeror's price, to an unauthorized person during the course of a procurement is improper. Information Ventures, Inc., B-241441.4, B-241441.6, Dec. 27, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 583 at 4; Motorola, Inc., B-247937.2, Sept. 9 1992, 92-2 CPD para. 334 at 9. Where an agency inadvertently discloses an offeror's proprietary information, the agency may choose to cancel the procurement if it reasonably determines that the disclosure harmed the integrity of the procurement process. Information Ventures, Inc., supra, at 4-5; Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., B-247053.5, June 11, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 509 at 4-5.