Dellew Corporation

B-410159 Nov 03, 2014 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Goldbelt Falcon, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's exclusion from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to basic ordering agreement (BOA) request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-13-R-0038, for logistics support services. Goldbelt asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Goldbelt Falcon, LLC File: B-410159 Date: November 3, 2014 Robert E. Korroch, Esq., and William A. Wozniak, Esq., Williams Mullen, for the protester. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s contention that the agency improperly and mechanically applied an undisclosed government estimate to conclude that its proposed staffing was unacceptable is denied where the agency considered the protester’s specific approach to satisfying the performance work statement and stated workload requirements, and informed the protester during discussions that its staffing was inadequate. DECISION Goldbelt Falcon, LLC, of Chesapeake, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s exclusion from the competitive range of the proposal it submitted in response to basic ordering agreement (BOA) request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-13-R-0038, for logistics support services. Goldbelt asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. The Army issued the RFP to holders of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) BOA with the intention of issuing a task order for logistics support for the Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, Logistics Readiness Center. The RFP, set aside for small business concerns, provided that the task order would be issued on a best-value basis considering the following evaluation factors: technical (with elements for mission capability narrative, mission essential contractor services, organizational diagram, and staffing); past performance; and price. RFP at 116. The estimated value of this procurement is $112 million. Agency Report (AR) at 2. The Army evaluated proposals in three phases. Id. at 2-5. During phase 1, the agency determined whether offerors would have a facility security clearance by the closing date for the receipt of proposals. During phase 2, those offerors that would have a facility security clearance by the closing date submitted technical proposals. The agency first evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis whether those technical proposals demonstrated that the offeror would adhere to the minimum productive hours listed in the solicitation workload data. The proposals that were rated acceptable in this regard were then evaluated for acceptability under the technical factor for inclusion in the competitive range. A proposal was required to receive a rating of acceptable for each element of the technical factor to be rated overall acceptable under the technical factor. RFP at 117. During phase 3, proposals that were included in the competitive range were to be evaluated against the past performance and price factors and considered for award on a best value basis. RFP at 117. Fourteen proposals (including Goldbelt’s) were included in Phase 2, and all of them initially were found to be technically unacceptable. The agency then conducted discussions with each of the 14 offerors and requested revised proposals. Based on the revised proposals, the agency established a competitive range which did not include Goldbelt’s proposal. AR at 8. In this regard, Goldbelt’s initial proposal was evaluated with 11 deficiencies under the staffing subfactor. Id. at 6. Following the receipt and evaluation of Goldbelt’s revised proposal, the agency found that deficiencies remained with respect to its proposed staffing for the quality control and environmental responsibilities, which rendered the proposal unacceptable. Id. Upon learning of its exclusion from further consideration, Goldbelt filed this protest. In its protest, Greenbelt challenges the agency’s finding that its proposed staffing was unacceptable. In this regard, offerors were required to complete attachment 2 to the RFP with their proposed labor categories and staffing levels, based on the performance work statement (PWS) and the workload data provided in the solicitation. RFP at 54.