URS Federal Services, Inc.

B-411024.2 Apr 29, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-13-R-0161, which was issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services for the Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 (APS-3) Charleston Afloat program. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as noncompliant with the terms of the solicitation. 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: Strategic Resources, Inc. File: B-411024.2 Date: April 29, 2015 Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., and Lauren J. Schlanger, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for the protester. Michael J. Kraycinovich, Esq., and Alex M. Cahill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as noncompliant with the solicitation’s requirements regarding the completion of required staffing and pricing tables is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and where the solicitation was not ambiguous. DECISION Strategic Resources, Inc. (SRI), of McLean, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-13-R-0161, which was issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services for the Army Prepositioned Stocks-3 (APS-3) Charleston Afloat program. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal as noncompliant with the terms of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was open to holders of an Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) basic order agreement (BOA), sought proposals for the issuance of a single combination cost-plus-fixed-fee/fixed-price task order with a 12‑month base period and four 1-year options.[1] RFP § M.1.1. The solicitation provided for the task order to be issued to the offeror whose proposal met the following criteria:[2] had the lowest total evaluated price that is fair and reasonable; was technically acceptable; had a past performance rating of substantial confidence; and was evaluated as at least acceptable for small business participation.[3] RFP § M.1.1. To be evaluated as technically acceptable, a proposal was required to achieve at least an acceptable rating in each of the following three technical sub-factors: staffing and management plan; mission essential contractor services; and organizational diagram. RFP § M.5.1. The solicitation included the following contract line item numbers (CLINs): CLIN No. 0001, one-time transition-in costs to be incurred in the base year; CLIN No. 0002, labor costs and fixed fees for mission and support; CLIN No. 0003, labor costs and fixed fees for oversized and outsized support; and CLIN No. 0004, a plug number of $13,201,051supplied by the agency for other direct costs (ODC). AR, Tab 4e, RFP Attach. 5, Cost/Price Matrix. The RFP required offerors to complete various solicitation attachments, including, as relevant here, attachment 5, the Cost/Price Matrix, and attachment 10, the Teaming Matrix. The Cost/Price Matrix required offerors to provide the prices for each CLIN as well as their “Total Proposed Price.” AR, Tab 4e, RFP Attach. 5, Cost/Price Matrix. As discussed below, the Cost/Price Matrix included prepopulated fields for ODCs, and also included a space for offerors to include the price for a 6-month option to extend, under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.217-8. The Teaming Matrix required offerors to list the firms that would be performing the contract, along with the estimated dollar value of their performance and what percentage of the total effort their contribution represented. AR, Tab 4i, RFP Attach. 10, Teaming Matrix. The Teaming Matrix also required offerors to provide the “Total Estimated dollar value” of their proposed effort. Id. The solicitation advised offerors that they were to populate every column of the Teaming Matrix and that the “total estimated dollar value provided on [the Teaming Matrix] Attachment 0010 shall be equal to the Total Proposed Price found on Attachment 0005-Cost/Price Matrix.” RFP Amend. 4, § L.5.1.8. The solicitation further provided that failure to provide a Teaming Matrix compliant with the terms of RFP § L.5.1.8 “shall render the Offeror[’]s proposal non‑compliant,” and that such a proposal would not be further evaluated for award. RFP Amend.