Conti Federal Services, Inc. (W912WJ-22-R-0014)

B-422162,B-422162.2,B-422162.3 Feb 01, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Conti Federal Services, LLC, a small business of Orlando, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Charter Contracting Company, LLC, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912WJ-22-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for environmental remediation services. The protester primarily challenges the agency's cost realism evaluation. 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: Conti Federal Services, LLC File: B-422162; B-422162.2; B-422162.3 Date: February 1, 2024 Scott F. Lane, Esq., Jayne Marie Rust, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Jeffrey S. Newman, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Gary J. Campbell, Esq., and Jedidiah K. R. Blake, Esq., Perkins Coie, for Charter Contracting Company, LLC, the intervenor. Jenna N. Gustafson, Esq., and Katherine D. Denzel, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation is sustained where record shows agency made unreasonable upward adjustments that raised protester’s most probable cost above awardee’s. DECISION Conti Federal Services, LLC, a small business of Orlando, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Charter Contracting Company, LLC, a small business of Boston, Massachusetts, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912WJ-22-R-0014, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for environmental remediation services. The protester primarily challenges the agency’s cost realism evaluation. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On September 21, 2022, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the solicitation as a small business set-aside, seeking proposals for environmental remediation services at the Durham Manufacturing Company superfund site located in Durham, Connecticut.[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 26, RFP at 1, Exh. 2, Specifications (Specs.) at 1, 5, 9.[2] The solicited project includes phased excavation and transport for disposal of “impacted soil.” AR, Exh. 2, Specs. at 5. The solicitation explained that the project site is an area known to be contaminated with various volatile organic compounds (e.g., benzene, toluene, methylene chloride). Id. at 9. The solicitation contemplated award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 1‑year period of performance; there were no option periods. RFP at 46, 104. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and the following non‑cost factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) team experience; (2) technical approach; and (3) past performance. Id. at 106. The non-cost factors, when combined, were approximately equal to cost. Id. The solicitation provided the agency would evaluate proposed costs for realism, reasonableness, and balance, and, if needed, adjust an offeror’s proposed cost to calculate a most probable cost (MPC) to be used for evaluation purposes. Id. at 111‑112. After evaluating initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the three most highly rated proposals, including those submitted by the protester and Charter, the awardee. AR, Exh. 23, Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 3. Using written evaluation notices (ENs), the agency conducted discussions with each offeror in the competitive range. At the conclusion of discussions, USACE requested and received final proposal revisions. Id. at 5. The agency’s evaluators assessed the protester’s and awardee’s final proposals as follows:   Conti Charter Factor 1: Team Experience Outstanding Outstanding Factor 2: Technical Approach Outstanding Outstanding Factor 3: Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Proposed Cost $10,961,174 $11,614,339 Evaluated Cost (MPC) $11,546,496 $11,540,018   Id. As part of the tradeoff analysis, the source selection authority (SSA) compared Charter’s and Conti’s same-rated proposals and found that while “Conti’s proposal demonstrates strengths that provide value to the Government, the value provided by Charter in Factor 1 is considered more significant as they are more relevant to the proposed work than Conti’s strengths.” Id. at 7.