Muller Environmental Consulting Services

B-413827 Dec 14, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Muller Environmental Consulting Services, of Forest Hill, Maryland, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Osage of Virginia, Inc., of Manteo, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56ZTN-16-T-0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, for technical assistance associated with the Army's environmental compliance program. The protester argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal, and that the terms of the solicitation were ambiguous. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Muller Environmental Consulting Services File:  B-413827 Date:  December 14, 2016 Jessica Belfit Muller, Muller Environmental Consulting Services, for the protester. Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Joseph S. Beazley, 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 Protest challenging agency’s rejection of protester’s proposal is denied where proposal lacked required option period pricing. DECISION Muller Environmental Consulting Services, of Forest Hill, Maryland, protests the issuance of a purchase order to Osage of Virginia, Inc., of Manteo, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W56ZTN-16-T-0011, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, for technical assistance associated with the Army’s environmental compliance program.  The protester argues that the agency improperly rejected its proposal, and that the terms of the solicitation were ambiguous. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on August 24, 2016, and was set aside for woman-owned small businesses.  RFP at 1.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for a twelve-month base period, with an option for an additional six months, to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation would be most advantageous to the government, considering technical and price factors.[1]  Id. at 26.  Regarding the technical factor, the solicitation required that proposed key personnel have a Bachelor’s of Science or Master’s degree in engineering, environmental sciences or other sciences, and a minimum one year of experience in solid waste projects.  Id.  Regarding the price factor, the RFP provided that the government would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.  Id. The schedule included in the RFP contained three contract line items (CLINs):  CLIN 0001, environmental program technical support; CLIN 0002, contractor manpower reporting; and CLIN 1001, option to extend for six months.  RFP at 3-4.  The RFP was amended three times, in order to answer industry questions.   Agency Report (AR), Tabs 5, 6, and 7, RFP Amendments 0001, 0002, and 0003.  Among the questions addressed were requests for clarification regarding the information to be provided by offerors.  In this regard, the agency clarified that the solicitation did not contain a separate section with instructions to offerors, and advised offerors to look at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 52.212-2 for the factors used to evaluate proposals.  Id.  Regarding instructions to offerors, the RFP also included by reference FAR § 52.212-1(g) which provides that, among other things, the agency intended to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions, and advised offerors that initial offers should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.  RFP at 25. The agency received seven proposals in response to the solicitation, including proposals submitted by the protester and the awardee.  AR at 3.  Both the protester and the awardee were found to satisfy the agency’s criteria under the technical factor.  Id.  Regarding price, however, the agency concluded that the protester was ineligible for award because it failed to submit prices for the contract manpower reporting requirement and the 6-month option, which precluded the agency from conducting an overall price evaluation of its proposal in accordance with FAR § 52.212-2.  Id. at 4. Based on the results of its evaluation, the agency selected Osage for issuance of the purchase order.  AR at 5.  The protester was notified of the agency’s decision on September 21, and this protest followed on September 27. DISCUSSION The protester argues that it was improper for the agency to exclude its proposal for failure to include pricing information, because the RFP failed to adequately explain what offerors were expected to include in their proposals.