Environmental Restoration, LLC

B-417080 Feb 05, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Environmental Restoration, LLC, a small business of St. Louis, Missouri, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-HQ-14-00023 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental remediation service support. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating its proposal in several respects. We deny 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: Environmental Restoration, LLC File: B-417080 Date: February 5, 2019 Megan C. Connor, Esq., Kathryn V. Flood, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Timothy F. Valley, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Robert Symon, Esq., Sarah Osborne, Esq., and Aron Beezley, Esq., Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, for Environmental Quality Management, Inc. & CH2M Hill Joint Venture; and Nina Samuels, Esq., and Richard O'Keeffe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for CDM Smith Inc., the intervenors. Sara E. McGraw, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency did not use unstated evaluation criteria in its evaluation of protester's proposal where the criteria were reasonably encompassed by the solicitation's evaluation scheme. 2. Protest that agency ignored elements of the protester's proposal is denied where the record reflects that the agency either reasonably considered the elements in question or the elements were not relevant to the evaluation. DECISION Environmental Restoration, LLC, a small business of St. Louis, Missouri, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOL-HQ-14-00023 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for environmental remediation service support. The protester alleges that the agency erred in evaluating its proposal in several respects. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 16, 2016, the EPA issued the RFP for three multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for personnel, materials, and services necessary to implement EPA-led environmental remediation and removal at Superfund sites. Contracting Officer's Statement of Facts (COSF) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1-4. Specifically, the RFP included three contract line item numbers (CLINs), each of which covered a separate geographic area.1 Id. Offerors could propose in response to any or all of the CLINs. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1. The agency anticipated making seven awards under each CLIN, with three of the seven awards under each CLIN reserved for small businesses. COSF at 1. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical capability, past performance, and price. RFP at 108-109. The technical capability evaluation factor included the following subfactors: (1) management plan; (2) corporate experience; (3) sample project technical approach; and (4) quality management program. Id. The RFP also indicated that each subfactor would be assigned one of the following adjectival ratings: (1) outstanding; (2) good; (3) acceptable; (4) marginal; or (5) unacceptable. Id. at 110. The RFP provided that awards would be made to the proposals that were most advantageous to the government considering price and other factors. RFP at 108. In making that determination, technical capability and past performance were considered equally important, but, taken together, were significantly more important than price. Id. Relevant to this protest, the solicitation required offerors to include a management plan with their proposals that, among other things, would be evaluated on the basis of an offeror's demonstrated capability to provide qualified staff and the necessary equipment to effectively execute multiple, concurrent projects. RFP at 108. Additionally, the solicitation required that the management plan include an organizational chart, as well as a narrative addressing the location of offices, staff, materials, and equipment for support of each CLIN. RFP at 92. The solicitation also required offerors to submit eight prior projects demonstrating their corporate experience. Of the eight projects, the solicitation provided that at least two should demonstrate corporate experience with implementation of in-situ environmental remediation technologies, such as chemical oxidation, bio-remediation, or thermal extraction techniques. RFP at 92-93. With respect to the sample project technical approach subfactor, the solicitation required offerors to provide a technical approach narrative addressing a sample soil remediation project, which was not to exceed two pages.