BNUMBER:  B-281222 
DATE:  January 12, 1999
TITLE: WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc., B-281222, January 12,
1999
**********************************************************************

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.
Matter of:WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc.

File:     B-281222

Date:January 12, 1999

Donald J. Kinlin, Esq., and Scott K. McPeek, Esq., Thompson Hine & 
Flory, for the protester.
Richard B. Oliver, Esq., McKenna & Cuneo, for Environmental Chemical 
Corporation, and Michael Donnelly, Esq., for Montgomery Watson 
Americas, Inc., the intervenors.
Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Capt. Douglas M. Whitehead, Department 
of the Air Force, for the agency.
Robert C. Arsenoff, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that an awardee was given undue evaluation credit for 
proposing a solution to a sample task order because it allegedly 
copied the solution provided by its proposed subcontractor (which was 
also a successful competitor) is denied where the record does not 
support the protester's speculation that the solution was merely 
copied.

DECISION

WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. (WRS) protests the award of a 
contract to Environmental Chemical Corporation (ECC) under request for 
proposals (RFP)
No. F42650-98-R-0003, issued by the Department of the Air Force for 
construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) services for 
remediation, restoration, clean-up and long-term monitoring of 
environmental actions at Hill Air Force Base and surrounding Air Force 
property in Utah.  WRS alleges that ECC received undue evaluation 
credit for its mission capability on the basis that its response to a 
sample task was allegedly copied from that of another 
offeror--Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. (MW).

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued on March 16, 1998, solicited offers for up to four 
indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts against which task 
orders would be issued.  The base period for performance was 3 years 
with two 1-year options.  The RFP provided that:

     The Government may award one contract to an 8(a) firm and one to 
     a small business firm if the government determines, from the 
     proposals, there are offerors in these categories technically 
     capable of satisfying the requirement.  The remaining two 
     contracts will be awarded to technically qualified firms, 
     regardless of size, using full and open competition.

RFP  sec.  M 3.0B.

Section M of the RFP provided that awards would be made on a best 
value basis considering four evaluation factors:  mission capability, 
performance confidence, proposal risk, and cost/price.  Mission 
capability and performance confidence were considered to be of equal 
importance and more important than the remaining factors.  Proposal 
risk was less important than the first two factors and more important 
than cost/price.  Mission capability and proposal risk had identical 
subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) Design 
concept and construction work plan to the sample task order[1]; (2) 
O&M plan to the sample task order; (3) Personnel plan; and (4) Breadth 
of experience.  RFP  sec.  M 4.0-4.2.

Twelve offers were received by the proposal submission date.  The RFP 
in section L-1 at 1 incorporated a clause providing that awards could 
be made on the basis of initial proposals and, in fact, no discussions 
were held.  In his selection decision, the source selection authority 
(SSA) noted that ECC, a firm specializing in construction, and MW, an 
architectural/engineering (A&E) firm, submitted virtually identical 
proposals and that each was listed as the primary subcontractor in the 
other's proposal.  Source Selection Decision (SSD), Sept. 10, 1998, at 
1.  He further found that "their solution" to the sample task order 
exceeded the agency's requirements and noted that ECC had submitted 
the third lowest evaluated price while MW's price was sixth lowest.  
Id.  As for the protester, the SSA noted the following:  "[WRS] was 
competitive and its design met all requirements.  However, its 
approach did not provide any added benefit to the Air Force and its 
price was the ninth lowest."  Id. at 2.        

Awards were made to MW, ECC, and two other firms on September 11.  
Following an October 1 debriefing, WRS filed this protest on October 
5.

PROTEST AND ANALYSIS

In its initial protest, WRS alleged that:  (1) MW and ECC engaged in 
prohibited multiple bidding which prejudiced the government and other 
offerors; (2) the awards to reciprocal teaming partners MW and ECC 
would subvert competition for task orders; (3) the awards will tend to 
increase the scope and maximum value of the contracts; and (4) MW's 
potential conflicts of interest as a former A&E contractor at Hill Air 
Force Base will further complicate competition for task orders and 
cause the agency to incur additional expenses in tracking and 
preventing such conflicts.  The agency report addressed each of these 
allegations in detail and WRS, after reviewing the report and the 
accompanying exhibits provided to its counsel under a protective order 
issued by this Office, reformulated its position as follows:

     Based on the facts in the record, including the Agency Report
     submitted in response to this protest, the issue in this protest 
can now be                                                         
stated as follows:

     Did the Government evaluate proposals fairly and in accordance
     with the Solicitation factors when it gave [ECC] the same "Green"
     rating for Mission Capability as it gave to [MW], where ECC 
merely
     copied [MW's] solution to the Sample Task Order upon which
     the Green rating was based?

     The answer must be an emphatic 'no' . . . .

WRS's Comments, Nov. 18, 1998, at 1.

More particularly, WRS has now recast its argument to make the 
assertion that, with respect to two of the most important evaluation 
factors, mission capability and performance risk, ECC received undue 
evaluation credit for the first two subfactors under each 
factor--i.e., those involving the design and construction solutions to 
the sample task order and those involving the O&M solution to the 
sample task order.  Moreover, WRS submits that had ECC been properly 
rated, the protester would have necessarily been in line for award.

In reviewing protests against the propriety of an agency evaluation of 
proposals, it is not the function of our Office to independently 
evaluate proposals and we will, therefore, not disturb the agency's 
conclusion unless it is shown to be unreasonable.  The record must 
establish that the evaluation is unreasonable and the mere fact that a 
protester disagrees with the agency does not render the evaluation 
unreasonable.  American Educ. Complex Sys., B-228584, Jan. 13, 1988, 
88-1 CPD  para.  30 at 2.  Moreover, our Office will not sustain a protest 
that is based on speculation.  Id.

WRS's repeated contention that ECC merely copied MW's solution to the 
sample task order is founded in speculation that is not supported by 
the record.  Noting that the solutions submitted by the two offerors 
are virtually identical, which is confirmed by our reading of the 
proposals, WRS essentially bases its entire argument on the following 
statement made by the evaluators when rating ECC's proposal:  
"Proposal [under subfactor 1] was a sloppy cut and paste of the [MW] 
proposal (e.g. Table 2, Figure 2, grammatical errors, etc.).  Reflects 
poorly on offeror's internal QC program."  Technical Team Review of 
Proposals, July 29, 1998, at 14.  From this, WRS concludes that ECC 
copied the sample task order portion of MW's proposal.

In our view this statement does not, as the protester insists, 
establish that the agency believed that ECC had no role in the 
preparation of the task order solution, or that this was objectively 
true.  On the contrary, the statement reflects what the evaluators 
termed a "minor weakness" in ECC's presentation.  Id.  In his source 
selection decision, the SSA essentially recognized that the two 
offerors collaborated in developing the solution when he concluded 
that:  "[t]heir [ECC's and MW's] solution to the sample problem 
exceeded performance requirements . . . ."  SSD, supra, at 1.  
Moreover, in a sworn statement, ECC's project manager stated that at 
least five members of his firm collaborated with MW on the sample task 
solution by helping to evaluate four possible design concept 
alternatives, including the preparation of technical drawings and 
plans, contacting specialty contractors and preparing cost estimates.  
He further states that ECC and MW discussed the alternatives and 
jointly developed a design approach.  Once the approach was 
determined, he states that ECC personnel drafted portions of the 
response including the construction plan, the soil handling plan and 
the excavation and soil handling QC and safety sections.  ECC's 
Comments, Dec. 3, 1998, Attachment at  para.  2.  In its final comments, MW 
confirms the collaborative effort in preparing a joint solution as 
"the work of experts from both companies with skills relevant to the 
solution."  MW's Comments, Dec. 10, 1998, at 2.

WRS also notes that ECC relied in its proposal on the extensive 
experience of MW with contracts at Hill Air Force Base and argues 
that, since ECC had no such experience of its own, it impermissibly 
piggy-backed on its proposed subcontractor's experience to demonstrate 
mission capability it otherwise did not have.  The RFP did not require 
Hill-specific experience and did not prohibit subcontracting.   
Accordingly, there is no basis to object to the evaluator's decision 
to consider MW's experience in rating ECC.  Further, a review of ECC's 
proposal indicates that it listed a number of large remediation 
contracts where it performed as the prime contractor at other base 
locations.  To the extent that WRS suggests that MW's Hill-specific 
experience provided ECC with an unfair advantage because it gave ECC 
credit for developing a response to a Hill-specific sample task order 
problem when ECC had no such experience, the Air Force responds and 
the record supports that the sample task order problem was not 
specific to Hill Air Force Base.

In sum, the record provides no basis to question the agency's 
conclusion that ECC deserved to be rated the same as MW with respect 
to the sample task order solution, notwithstanding WRS's speculation 
that ECC's proposal was merely a copy of MW's, and the agency's 
evaluation of ECC's proposal is unobjectionable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States  

1. The sample task order was a hypothetical environmental remediation 
problem that offerors were required to address.