DA Defense Logistics HQ

B-411153 May 22, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Contract Services, Inc. (CSI), a small business, of Junction City, Kansas, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-14-R-0154, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for logistics support operations at Fort Riley, Kansas, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program. The protester alleges that the RFP is unduly restrictive of competition because it requires possession of a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Contract Services, Inc. File: B-411153 Date: May 22, 2015 Darcy V. Hennessy, Esq., Leslie A. Boe, Esq., and Jody R. Gondring, Esq., Hennessy, Boe & Gondring, P.A., for the protester. Melissa Lloyd, Esq., and Alex M. Cahill, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation requirement that an offeror possess a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals does not unduly restrict competition where the record shows that the requirement is reasonably related to the agency’s needs. DECISION Contract Services, Inc. (CSI), a small business, of Junction City, Kansas, challenges the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-14-R-0154, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Materiel Command, for logistics support operations at Fort Riley, Kansas, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program. The protester alleges that the RFP is unduly restrictive of competition because it requires possession of a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside, sought proposals from EAGLE basic ordering agreement (BOA) holders for logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Riley, Kansas. RFP at 2.[1] The RFP anticipates the award of a cost-plus fixed-fee task order with a fixed-fee contract line item number for a 60-day transition period. Id. In addition to the transition period, the RFP contemplated a 1-year base performance period, and four 1-year options. Id. The RFP required that offerors have a secret facility clearance prior to the RFP’s closing date. Id. at 3. A facility clearance is an administrative determination that a facility is eligible for access to classified information or award of a classified contract. AR, Tab 17, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, § 2‑100. The RFP stated that offerors that did not have a secret facility clearance at the time of proposal submission would be found noncompliant with the RFP’s requirements, and noncompliant proposals would not be further evaluated or considered for award. RFP at 52, 67.[2] DISCUSSION CSI argues that the requirement to possess a secret facility clearance by the submission date for proposals is unduly restrictive of competition. The protester argues that the agency has not established any immediate need for an offeror to have a secret facility clearance, as the RFP contemplates a 60-day transition period. See Protest at 4-5; Comments (Apr. 2, 2015) at 2-3. Alternatively, CSI argues that the RFP is unduly restrictive because it effectively excludes offerors, like CSI, who currently have an “inactive” facility clearance, that is, an offeror who previously held a clearance.[3] The protester argues that offerors with inactive clearances can secure a reactivation of their clearances more expeditiously than an offeror who never held a clearance could obtain one. The protester argues that it--and other similarly situated EAGLE BOA holders--will not be able to reactivate the required clearance until the award of the order with a clearance requirement, and for this reason, the agency should amend the solicitation to remove the requirement to have a facility clearance at the time of proposal submission. See Protest at 4‑5, 6; Comments (Apr. 2, 2015) at 3. For the following reasons, we find that none of CSI’s arguments provide a basis on which to sustain the protest. The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 requires that agencies specify their needs and solicit offers in a manner designed to achieve full and open competition, so that all responsible sources are permitted to compete. 10 U.S.C. § 2305(a)(1)(A)(i). The determination of a contracting agency’s needs and the best method for accommodating them is a matter primarily within the agency’s discretion. Gallup, Inc., B-410126, Sept. 25, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 280 at 5. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning the agency’s needs and how to accommodate them does not show that the agency’s judgment is unreasonable.