Arcadis US, Inc.

B-412828 Jun 16, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arcadis U.S., Inc., of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to OBG/Baker Federal Solutions Joint Venture, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, under an unnumbered request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for remedial action and surface support assistance at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site near Lead, South Dakota. Arcadis challenges the evaluation of its proposal, the evaluation of the awardee's proposal, and the agency's best-value determination. We sustain the protest. We sustain the protest. View Decision 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:  Arcadis U.S., Inc. File:  B-412828 Date:  June 16, 2016 Douglas L. Patin, Esq., Aron C. Beezley, Esq., and Lisa Markman, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, for the protester. Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Amy M. Conant, Esq., and Andrew N. Cook, Esq., K&L Gates LLP, for OBG/Baker Federal Solutions Joint Venture, the intervenor. Thomas J. Ingram, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the evaluation of proposals is sustained where the evaluation was unreasonable and inadequately documented. 2.  Protest that source selection decision was unreasonable is sustained where the best-value determination was based on an unreasonable and inadequately documented evaluation, and did not include consideration of the protester’s lowest‑priced proposal in the tradeoff analysis. DECISION ­Arcadis U.S., Inc., of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, protests the issuance of a task order to OBG/Baker Federal Solutions Joint Venture, of Moon Township, Pennsylvania, under an unnumbered request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for remedial action and surface support assistance at the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site near Lead, South Dakota.[1]  Arcadis challenges the evaluation of its proposal, the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal, and the agency’s best-value determination. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on November 9, 2015, to firms holding contracts under a contract vehicle called the “Multiple Environmental Government Acquisition, Unrestricted Pre-Placed Remedial Action Contracts, Multiple‑Award Task Order Contract.”  Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) Statement at 1.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order for remediation activities at Operable Unit 1 of the Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site, including sludge removal, sludge dewatering, sludge transfer, and blasting and plugging of underground mine workings.  Agency Report (AR) at 1.  The task order was to be issued on a best‑value basis, considering technical approach, previous experience and project team, and price.[2]  AR, Tab 16, RFP Evaluation Criteria, at 2-3.  The RFP established that the technical approach factor was more important than the previous experience and project team factor, and that the two non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id. at 2.  The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated to determine the extent to which each offeror demonstrated a clear understanding of the requirements of the RFP.  Id. at 1.  In this regard, the RFP established that, in order to receive consideration for award, a proposal must meet the requirements established by the RFP and the base contract, and contain adequate detail to assure the evaluators that the offeror has an understanding of the requirements.  Id.  Finally, the RFP required offerors to submit proposals that completely addressed all evaluation factors and specifically identified how each requirement would be satisfied. Regarding the technical approach factor, the RFP required an explanation of proposed technical approaches for accomplishing the goals identified in the statement of objectives (SOO).  Id. at 2.  The RFP also required technical approaches to include, at a minimum, strategies for sludge removal, sludge dewatering, sludge transfer, blasting, and plugging of underground mine workings, as well as a schedule supporting the proposed technical approach, outlining activities and milestones.  Id. With regard to the previous experience and project team factor, the RFP required proposals to include a detailed discussion of directly relevant experience and capabilities to execute the specific tasks outlined in the SOO.  Id.