Red River Waste Solutions, Inc.

B-411760.2 Jan 20, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Red River Waste Solutions, LP (RRWS), of Dripping Springs, Texas, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-15-R-0026, issued by the Department of the Army, to provide solid waste management services at or near Fort Polk, Louisiana. RRWS, the incumbent contractor for these requirements, protests that the solicitation, which seeks commercial services pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, contains terms that are inconsistent with customary commercial practice, and that the estimated quantities in the solicitation are not based on the best available information. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Red River Waste Solutions, LP File:  B-411760.2 Date:  January 20, 2016 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Major M. Aaron Lee, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the terms of a solicitation for commercial waste management services, issued pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, is sustained where the agency’s market research fails to reasonably support the agency’s determination that the solicitation’s pricing terms are consistent with customary commercial practice, as required by the FAR. 2.  Protest that estimated quantities in solicitation are not based on the best available information is denied where agency based its estimates on the most recent historical data, and also provided offerors with additional data covering the preceding 3 years.   DECISION Red River Waste Solutions, LP (RRWS), of Dripping Springs, Texas, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-15-R-0026, issued by the Department of the Army, to provide solid waste management services at or near Fort Polk, Louisiana.[1]  RRWS, the incumbent contractor for these requirements, protests that the solicitation, which seeks commercial services pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, contains terms that are inconsistent with customary commercial practice, and that the estimated quantities in the solicitation are not based on the best available information.    We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part.    BACKGROUND On May 8, 2015, the agency issued this solicitation pursuant to FAR Part 12, posting it to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at that time.  The solicitation requires the contractor to collect and dispose of solid waste in designated areas in and around Fort Polk, and provides that, except for government-furnished property, the contractor must provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, collection systems, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the required services.  AR, Tab 6, PWS ¶ 1.1.  The solicitation contemplates award of a single, indefinite-delivery requirements contract for a base period[2] and four 1-year option periods.  Offerors are required to submit fixed prices, on a per-ton basis, for several contract line item numbers (CLINS), for which the solicitation provided estimated quantities.[3]  This solicitation varies from the prior contract, held by RRWS, in that CLINs for contractor overhead costs have been removed.  That is, although the prior contract included CLINs priced on a per-ton basis, the agency acknowledges that the prior contract also had overhead CLINs covering the contractor’s variable costs.  Here, the solicitation eliminates the overhead CLINs, requiring offerors to submit prices that reflect “all fixed and variable costs” on a per‑ton basis, and “only permits the Contractor to invoice on tonnage collected.”  AR, Tab 2, Contracting Officer’s Statement, at 2.  The agency acknowledges that compensation under the current solicitation is “primarily based on tonnage.”  AR at 3.  Following publication of the solicitation, the agency conducted a site visit, issued various solicitation amendments, and responded to offerors’ questions.  As amended, the solicitation provided for a July 16 closing date.  On July 10, 2015, RRWS filed a protest with our Office challenging the terms of the solicitation.  In that protest, RRWS asserted, among other things, that the solicitation’s requirements for fixed prices on a per-ton basis were inconsistent with commercial practice, and that the solicitation’s estimated quantities for the various CLINs were overstated.  See RRWS Protest, July 10, 2015, at 4, 27.  Thereafter, the agency advised our Office that it would take corrective action.  On August 12, we dismissed RRWS’s protest based on the agency’s pending corrective action. The agency subsequently issued s...