[Protest of EPA Contract Award]

A firm protested the award of a cost-reimbursement contract under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the evaluation and improvement of environmental monitoring testing methods. The protester contended that EPA improperly awarded the contract to a higher cost offerer whose proposal was almost technically equal to its proposal. The RFP stated that, while both technical quality and cost would be considered, technical quality would be the most important factor in determining the award. The protester contended that the technical scores were so close that they should have been considered equal and award should have been made to the lowest cost offerer. It also contended that its offered cost reduction in response to an agency request after best and final offers was not considered in the evaluation. The RFP clearly assigned greater weight to technical factors, and cost generally becomes the determinative factor only if the agency finds that the technical proposals are essentially equal. However, GAO found that the protester offered no support for its position that its proposal was technically equal to that submitted by the awardee. In addition, because the firm submitted its cost reduction after best and final offers, it could not be considered in the selection decision. Since the EPA decision conformed to the RFP evaluation scheme, GAO rejected the protester's argument that it should have received the award based on its lower cost. Accordingly, the protest was denied.