General Planning Studies 50 points G. Hazardous Material and Waste 50 points B. The firm is performing technical support services in a project involving explosive ordnance disposal, solid waste management, and disposal of toxic materials; the firm demonstrated good experience in hazardous material and waste, although with limited pollution prevention experience; the firm has good asbestos experience and adequate air quality experience. Plant and Animal Studies 25 points H. The technical evaluation factors and their respective assigned points were set forth in the solicitation as follows the maximum number of points available under the technical evaluation methodology was 1.
Water Quality 50 points F. The agency reserved the right to award the contract to other than the low offeror and stated that it intended to make only one award for all items in the schedule. While we agree with the protester that the narrative comments of the evaluators that accompanied the scoring were skimpy, we think the agency has provided ample explanation and justification for its decision in the agency report and its statements in response to Coe-Truman's protest. Asbestos, Lead, and Radon 50 points D. These services concern, among other things, hazardous materials; solid waste; asbestos; air quality; water quality; plant and animal studies; and environmental assessments.
Our fully configurable system has unique capabilities to encourage volunteer participation and assist attendees in finding the dynamic content that interests them the most—even in meetings with abstracts in the tens of thousands. While the protester has attempted to show that it deserved additional technical points in certain limited areas, the protester has not rebutted the agency's major findings as presented in the agency report that significant technical differences generally existed between the proposals of the firms selected for inclusion in the competitive range and the proposal of the protester. In contrast, the record shows Coe-Truman's proposal did not demonstrate nearly as extensive experience or technical excellence in these areas. For example, in waste minimization plans, the protester showed one project; in pollution prevention, the protester showed related experience but no work in preparing an actual plan; in solid waste, the protester, as part of its management plan, developed a computer model, but no details of the work were provided. Coe-Truman contends that the Army's determination to exclude its proposal from the competitive range was arbitrary. Environmental Assessments 25 points I. The record shows that Coe-Truman submitted a proposal which demonstrated good technical capability and expertise.
Initially, we point out that the competitive range is determined by comparing all of the acceptable proposals in a particular procurement, and an acceptable proposal may be eliminated by comparing the relative ranking and merit of the higher-rated proposals to the proposal in question. Solid Waste 50 points C. Upon receipt of its notice of nonselection, Coe-Truman filed this protest. Coe-Truman's price was considered complete, reasonable, and realistic to perform the work. Coe-Truman contends that the Army's determination to exclude its proposal from the competitive range was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. Professional Qualifications of Senior Key Personnel in the above areas.
Matter of: Coe-Truman Technologies, Inc. In this regard, while we accord greater weight to contemporaneous evaluation and source selection documents rather than documents which were prepared in response to protest allegations, we do consider the entire record in deciding whether an agency's evaluation is supportable, including statements and arguments made by the agency in response to the protest. The technical evaluation factors and their respective assigned points were set forth in the solicitation as follows the maximum number of points available under the technical evaluation methodology was 1,000 points : 1. The schedule contained estimated total hours for each labor category being solicited. Technical Capability; Expertise; and Knowledge of applicable Federal, State, and Local Regulations in the following subject areas: A. Excellence in Effective Presentation, Organization, and Documentation of a Sample Study.
Finally, the protester argues that the evaluators improperly relied on their own personal knowledge of the firm to downgrade the firm in the radon experience area. Together these services provide the rich content and attendee satisfaction that produce excellent meetings and conferences. We can also offer the data and insight to make future meetings even more relevant for their attendees. Further, agencies generally may properly consider in evaluating proposals their own past knowledge and experience with an offeror and do not absolutely have to limit their evaluation to the four corners of the proposal. . However, as discussed below, the agency determined that, on a relative basis as compared with the technically superior proposals, Coe-Truman's proposal should not be included in the competitive range. However, the agency found that the firm demonstrated less than adequate qualifications in the areas of general planning studies; plant and animal studies, environmental assessments; and cultural resources.
Air Quality 50 points E. Cultural Resources 25 points J. The sample studies for the criterion excellence in effective presentation were also generally well organized and presented. Letters requesting best and final offers were sent to the latter firms, while the excluded firms were generally notified of their failure to be selected. This version of the decision has been redacted. The protester also stresses that the evaluation record significantly lacked adequate documentation supporting the scoring and technical findings of the evaluators, and that the evaluators placed undue emphasis on experience on projects in Eastern Washington, which allegedly constituted an undisclosed criterion. General Accounting Office will not disturb an agency's decision to exclude protester's proposal from the competitive range on the ground that it had no reasonable chance of being selected for award where the agency reasonably evaluated six other offerors as relatively superior technically.
That price was considered secondary to the technical evaluation factors listed elsewhere in the solicitation. . . . . .