Project W Restoration, LLC (89303318REM000008)

B-418419,B-418419.2,B-418419.4,B-4184193 Apr 30, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Project W Restoration, LLC (PWR), of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Central Plateau Cleanup Company, LLC (CPC), of Aiken, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303318REM000008, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the environmental cleanup of radioactive and hazardous waste at DOE's Hanford Site in Washington. PWR challenges the evaluation of the offerors' technical and cost proposals and argues that the agency's best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable. 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:  Project W Restoration, LLC File:  B-418419; B-418419.2; B-418419.3; B-418419.4 Date:  April 30, 2020 Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., David F. Dowd, Esq., Luke Levasseur, Esq., and Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for the protester. Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Central Plateau Cleanup Company, LLC, the intervenor. H. Jack Shearer, Esq., John L. Bowles, Esq., and Christie Alvarez, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Challenge to the evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Challenge to the cost evaluation is denied where offerors proposed differing technical approaches, and the agency found that the costs associated with the different proposed approaches were reasonable and realistic. 3.  Challenge to the award decision is denied where the agency reasonably explained that the awardee’s higher technically rated proposal was worth the higher evaluated cost as compared to the protester’s proposal. DECISION   Project W Restoration, LLC (PWR), of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Central Plateau Cleanup Company, LLC (CPC), of Aiken, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303318REM000008, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for the environmental cleanup of radioactive and hazardous waste at DOE’s Hanford Site in Washington.[1]  PWR challenges the evaluation of the offerors’ technical and cost proposals and argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff and source selection decision was unreasonable.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOE issued the RFP on February 14, 2019, for the Hanford Central Plateau Cleanup Contract (CPCC).[2]  Agency Report (AR), Tab B.1, RFP at 1.  DOE is seeking a contractor to perform services for the safe, compliant, and cost effective transition from the incumbent Plateau Remediation Contract to the CPCC.  COS/MOL at 7.  Additionally, the contractor will perform:  management of site safe and compliant base operations for the DOE Richland Operations Office cleanup facilities; deactivation, decommission, decontamination, and demolition (D4) of facilities and remediation of waste sites; management of waste retrieval, treatment, storage, and disposal; preparation of decision documents[3] to support cleanup actions associated with the FFACO TPA; and business core functions to support these efforts.  Id.  The RFP anticipated award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.  AR, Tab B.1, RFP at 9.  The maximum value of the IDIQ is $10 billion dollars.  Id.  The ordering period is 10 years, including a 60-day transition period; the transition period will be included in task order 1, issued simultaneously with the master IDIQ contract.  Orders issued under the contract will be either cost‑reimbursement or fixed-priced.  The solicitation provided that the preference under the contract is for issuance of cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) and fixed-price task orders.  Id.  The RFP also advised that task orders will define objective performance criteria and “end states,” as applicable.[4]  Id.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering cost/price and the following three non-cost factors, in descending order of importance:  key personnel, technical and management approach, and past performance.  The RFP advised that the non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost/price.