LOGMET LLC

B-412220 Dec 21, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Phoenix Management, Inc. (PMI), a small business, of Austin, Texas, challenges its exclusion from the competition for a task order under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-15-R-0047, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, for logistics services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program. PMI argues that the Army unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition for allegedly failing to comply with the RFP's minimum labor hour and labor category classification requirements. 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:  Phoenix Management, Inc. File:  B-412220 Date:  December 21, 2015 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., and Kristin E. Zachman, Esq., Bailey & Bailey, P.C., for the protester. Michael J. Kraycinovich, Esq., and George P. Farley, 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 Protest challenging the exclusion of the protester’s proposal from the competition for failing to comply with material solicitation instructions regarding staffing is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s noncompliance determinations were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s instructions. DECISION Phoenix Management, Inc. (PMI), a small business, of Austin, Texas, challenges its exclusion from the competition for a task order under request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J-15-R-0047, which was issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, for logistics services at Fort Rucker, Alabama, and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, as part of the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) program.  PMI argues that the Army unreasonably eliminated its proposal from the competition for allegedly failing to comply with the RFP’s minimum labor hour and labor category classification requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued as a small business set-aside and sought proposals from EAGLE basic ordering agreement (BOA) holders for logistics support services, including maintenance, supply, and transportation services at Fort Rucker, Alabama (Rucker North) and Eglin Air Force Base, Florida (Rucker South).  RFP at 2.  The RFP anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order with a fixed-price contract line item for the transition requirements.  Id.  The RFP contemplated a 1‑year base performance period and four 1-year options.  Id. The RFP identified three equally-weighted evaluation factors:  (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price.  Id. at 62.[1]  Prior to evaluating proposals under the three evaluation factors, however, the Army was to conduct a “strict compliance review” to determine if the proposal satisfied all of the Section L proposal preparation requirements.  Id. at 61.  The RFP advised that any offeror’s proposal that was determined to be non-compliant would not be evaluated or further considered for award.  Id. PMI, which holds an EAGLE BOA, submitted a proposal by the RFP’s closing date.  The Army reviewed PMI’s proposal and found it to be non-compliant with respect to two RFP requirements.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2B, Elimination Notice (Sept. 25, 2015), at 1-3.  First, the agency found that the protester incorrectly rounded the number of proposed full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel listed in the required staffing labor/mix Microsoft Excel spreadsheet included as attachment No. 2 to the RFP, which led to PMI failing to propose the minimum required hours for the supply and services functional area.  Id. at 1-2.  Second, the Army found that PMI failed to properly identify in attachment No. 2, as required by the RFP, whether certain proposed labor categories were subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the Service Contract Act (SCA), or exempt from the SCA.  Id.