B-299721.4, The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc., January 24, 2008
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: The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc.
J. Patrick McMahon, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon & Tolle, LLP for the protester.
Azine Farzami, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that evaluation of protester’s proposal was flawed is denied where agency reasonably found proposal was confusing and contained numerous weaknesses and deficiencies.
DECISION
The Mangi Environmental Group, Inc. challenges the award of a contract to Geo Marine, Inc. (GMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. AG3151-S-07-0001, issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA), for programmatic environmental assessments (PEA). Mangi asserts that the technical evaluation and source selection were flawed.
The RFP was issued in response to a lawsuit by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) that resulted in a negotiated settlement with FSA and called for an additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the effects of managed haying and grazing on lands involved in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in 20 states identified in the settlement agreement.[1] The original environmental impact statement (EIS) on which the lawsuit was based was completed by Mangi. The RFP contemplated the award of a contract for 17 fixed‑price and 2 reimbursable (travel and supplies) contract line items to supply all necessary labor, materials, and expertise to complete 20 individual PEAs. Proposals were to be evaluated under three equally-weighted factors--past performance, technical capability, and price--with the non-price factors combined of greater importance than price. Award was to be made on a “best value” basis.
Four proposals, including Mangi’s and GMI’s, were received and evaluated. Mangi’s, GMI’s, and a third offeror’s proposals were included in the competitive range (the fourth proposal was eliminated due to technical deficiencies). After requesting and evaluating final proposal revisions (FPR), the agency selected GMI’s proposal as the best value and made award to that firm. Mangi protested the award and the agency took corrective action, reopening the competition and making a new source selection.[2]
The three offerors in the competitive range were given the opportunity to make oral presentations and to submit new FPRs under the reopened competition. The technical evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed the FPRs and reached the following consensus ratings:
Mangi |
GMI |
Offeror 3 |
|
Technical
Capability |
Incapable |
Very capable |
Capable |
Past Performance |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Overall Capability |
Incapable |
Very capable |
Capable |
Price |
$612,858 |
$1,201,884 |
$1,014,220 |
Based on the TEP’s evaluation, the contract specialist
recommended GMI’s proposal for award as the best value, noting, in part, its
capability rating of very capable, GMI’s experience on similar FSA projects,
the absence of litigation in connection with GMI’s over 800 projects, its
clearly stated project management and project controls, the extremely qualified
proposed personnel and industry experts, and the proven experience of the
proposed subcontractors. Agency Report
(AR), Tab 16, at 7. Award to Mangi
was not recommended due to its incapable technical rating, and because its low
price, together with its lack of technical understanding, was viewed as posing
a performance risk.
Mangi challenges the evaluation and award decision on numerous grounds, concluding that its proposal rating of incapable is not supported by the record. In Mangi’s view, its proposal reasonably and adequately demonstrated the firm’s experience and capability to perform the contract in all areas. We have considered all of Mangi’s arguments and find that they provide no basis to object to the evaluation and award. We address Mangi’s most significant arguments below.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The RFP advised offerors that, due to the size and complexity of the tasks to be performed, the agency envisioned the contractor serving as a prime, together with other consulting firms and subcontractors in each of the 20 states, to fulfill the RFP requirements. RFP sect. 2. Proposals were required to show the offeror’s experience in preparing environmental impact analyses and documentation, including environmental assessments (EA) and EISs, in accordance with NEPA; describe the analytic process the offeror would use to identify impacts that could arise from project components; describe how the firm would establish impact significance criteria and ratings for predicting potential impacts identified for each environmental resource area; and include a staffing plan demonstrating the offeror’s ability to execute the work within the constraints of the schedule.
In evaluating Mangi’s proposal, the TEP found many
weaknesses and deficiencies under the technical capability factor. For example, while the TEP found that Mangi
had experience based on numerous projects, it found that none was clearly
related to this procurement. AR,
Tab 13, at 1. The TEP found that
the proposal showed that Mangi had limited experience in implementing CRP
programs, and did not demonstrate that the firm had the skill sets or
experience in agricultural economics, range, and CRP enrollment that the agency
considered essential for successful performance. AR, Tab 16, at 6. In this regard, one of the evaluators noted
that the CRP is a voluntary program with agricultural economics as a critical
element, yet the proposal did not demonstrate extensive knowledge or experience
in this area. AR, Tab 13, at 6. Another evaluator, noting that the proposal
identified projects in which the firm was “engaged,” questioned what projects
were actually completed.
Mangi’s Approach
Mangi asserts that, although it did not propose a solution
like that envisioned in RFP sect. 2, its proposal addressed all RFP
requirements. It notes, for example,
that its proposal set forth Mangi’s extensive experience, including the
preparation of some 350 EAs and EISs, and explained its analytical
process. This process included
developing a description of the proposed action and alternatives; identifying
connected and cumulative actions, potential types of effects, priorities, and
allocations; determining data, study needs, scoping issues, and alternatives
and public involvement; conducting its analyses in accordance with its analytic
process, documenting the results, and providing an innovative concordance
analysis to show the ways in which each EA differs from the other ones in
structure, analysis, schedule, and conclusions.
Mangi Supplemental Comments at 4-5.
With regard to its proposed subcontractors, Mangi notes that it clearly
proposed that it would be responsible for the EAs and that the subcontractors
would serve as specialty consultants; this recognized that performance would be
based mainly on existing knowledge, literature reviews, and other appropriate
material.
In considering a protest of an agency’s proposal
evaluation, our review is confined to determining whether the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable
statutes and regulations. United Def.
LP, B‑286925.3 et al.,
This aspect of the evaluation was unobjectionable. While the agency was well aware that Mangi
itself had extensive NEPA experience, as noted, the agency was concerned with
the number of completed projects and its proposed subcontractors’ apparent lack
of NEPA experience. Further, while the
agency recognized that the proposal stated that Mangi would perform the bulk of
the work, it found that this was not so clear from a complete reading of the
proposal. For example, immediately after
stating that Mangi and its personnel would play a “major role in the centralized
planning, conduct and documentation of the EAs,” Mangi’s proposal stated that
its “[s]ubcontractors and their personnel familiar with each state will
substantially assist with the state-by-state scoping, planning, data gathering
and analysis within the systematic [Mangi] approach.” Mangi Proposal at 23. This language led the agency to question
whether Mangi might rely heavily on its proposed subcontractors, which was
problematic because it appeared that they lacked NEPA experience. Here, as with the other areas of its proposal
evaluated as weak or deficient, while Mangi may have attempted to cover the
requirements of the RFP, the agency found that its proposal failed to do so in
a clear and understandable manner. We
think the agency’s conclusion was reasonable, and that it reasonably downgraded
Mangi’s proposal on this basis.[3] See
Mangi’s Litigation Record
Mangi also challenges the agency’s downgrading of its
proposal based on the firm’s litigation record.
In this regard, the TEP noted that the current procurement stemmed from
litigation brought by NWF over an EIS prepared by Mangi, and that another Mangi
project (for the Rural Development Agency (
These assertions are without merit. With regard to the NWF litigation, since the
RFP specifically provided for offerors to describe and list any environmental
documents they had prepared that subsequently were the subject of litigation,
and to indicate the outcome of the litigation (RFP at 37), the agency’s
consideration of these matters formed a legitimate and, thus, unobjectionable
part of the technical capability evaluation.
While Mangi disagrees with the agency’s view on the firm’s responsibility
for the litigation, it had the opportunity to present its position and did so
in its original and supplemental proposals.
In this regard, an agency’s past performance evaluation may be based on
a reasonable perception of inadequate prior performance, regardless of whether
the contractor disputes the agency’s interpretation of the underlying
facts. Ready Transp., Inc.,
B-285283.3, B‑285283.4,
With regard to the
In our view, the agency reasonably evaluated Mangi’s proposal as technically incapable with unsatisfactory past performance.
SELECTION DECISION
Noting that GMI’s revised price was higher than the price in its original proposal (which was initially selected for award), and that its own price was substantially lower, Mangi questions the award decision. Specifically, Mangi maintains that it was unreasonable for the agency to make award to GMI at an additional price premium (over its original price) rather than make award to Mangi at its significantly lower price.
Our review of an agency’s price/technical tradeoff decision is limited to a
determination of whether it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation
criteria enunciated by the solicitation.
Construction Tech. Labs., Inc., B-281836,
Here, as discussed above, the agency rated Mangi’s
proposal as incapable under the technical factor and unsatisfactory under the
past performance factor. The source
selection statement noted that an incapable rating indicated that the offeror’s
submittal failed to meet most of the requirements; its responses were
considered irrelevant, incomplete, and/or unclear; deficiencies were considered
major or extensive requiring major revisions; and there was no reasonable
likelihood of success. AR, Tab 16, at
7. In contrast, GMI’s proposal was
evaluated as very capable, which indicated that it met the stated requirements
with no omissions, and was deemed comprehensive, clear and relevant, with
little or no risk that the offeror would fail to meet the RFP’s
requirements.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] According to the RFP, the CRP is the largest voluntary conservation program operated by the federal government and has implemented conservation practices on over 36 million acres of private land. RFP sect. 1.
[2]
We dismissed the initial protest as academic (B-299721,
[3] In contrast, we note that the agency found that GMI’s proposal described a simple process with clear and concise methods and clearly set forth GMI’s and its subcontractors’ roles and responsibilities. AR, Tab 11, at 4, 11, 14. In evaluating GMI’s proposal, the TEP noted that GMI offered “extremely qualified personnel and industry experts specializing in agricultural economics” and “clearly defined roles/responsibilities of prime and all subs”; and that “project management and project controls [were] clearly stated.” AR Tab 10.
[4]
According to Mangi’s original and revised proposals, the NWF litigation was
based on the failure of the EIS to focus on haying and grazing. Mangi Proposal at 17; Revised Proposal at
8. According to Mangi, it was at the
agency’s direction that Mangi did not address these issues in preparing the
EIS.
[5] We reach the same conclusion with regard to Mangi’s related argument challenging the agency’s consideration of its alleged record of cost control issues on previous work for FSA. To the extent Mangi was unaware of the agency’s issues with its cost controls, since the firm’s proposal was included in the competitive range, according to the plain terms of the RFP, the agency was not required to bring the matter to Mangi’s attention.
[6] While Mangi asserts that the agency improperly found its low price to be risky--based on the agency’s alleged misunderstanding of the firm’s lean overall corporate structure and innovative and more efficient approach--since, as discussed above, we have found that the agency reasonably evaluated Mangi’s technical proposal as incapable, we have no basis to question the agency’s related assessment of performance risk based on its low price.