[Request for Reconsideration of Protest of EPA Contract Award]

A firm requested reconsideration of a GAO decision which denied its protest of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contract award. The protester argued that its inclusion in the competitive range demonstrated that it was technically qualified and, therefore, EPA should have awarded it the contract as the low bidder. GAO disagreed because the solicitation's evaluation criteria stated that technical quality would be considered more important than price. If the protester disagreed with the evaluation criteria, it should have filed a protest against the solicitation prior to the closing date for receipt of initial proposals. GAO found that there was a rational basis for awarding the protester lower points because its consultants would work a low number of hours. In its request for reconsideration, the protester contended that the consultants would work any necessary additional hours. However, this was not reflected in its proposal. Since the evaluation criteria stated the importance of demonstrating the availability of staff, GAO found that the EPA evaluation was reasonable. Finally, the protester stated that the awardee should not have been awarded the contract because it intended to subcontract to a former EPA employee. GAO will not overturn an agency conflict-of-interest determination unless the determination is shown to be unreasonable. GAO found that the protester failed to meet this burden of proof. Since the protester failed to provide new evidence, GAO found that nothing in the request for reconsideration that warranted reversal of the initial decision. Accordingly, the decision was affirmed.