Akima Support Operations, LLC

B-417332 May 24, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Akima Support Operations (ASO), LLC, a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Tsay Professional Services, a small business of Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91249-18-R-0001, which was issued by the Department of the Army for base operation and maintenance support services at Fort Gordon, Georgia. The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding ASO's proposal unacceptable in various respects, and in finding ASO's estimated costs to be unrealistic. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Akima Support Operations, LLC File:  B-417332 Date:  May 24, 2019 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Bret Marfut, Esq., ProTorae Law, PLLC, for the protester. William Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the intervenor, Tsay Professional Services, Inc. Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Andrew J. Smith, Esq., and Felix Mason, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency erred in finding proposal unacceptable because an individual proposed for a key position did not possess minimum educational and work experience requirements specified in the solicitation is denied where the proposal failed to establish that the individual had either the necessary degree or the required experience. DECISION Akima Support Operations (ASO), LLC, a small business of Colorado Springs, Colorado, protests the award of a contract to Tsay Professional Services, a small business of Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91249-18-R-0001, which was issued by the Department of the Army for base operation and maintenance support services at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  The protester alleges that the agency erred in finding ASO’s proposal unacceptable in various respects, and in finding ASO’s estimated costs to be unrealistic. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 30, 2018, the agency issued the RFP, which contemplated the award of a single cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with a 10-month base period, and four 1-year options.  Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 1-2.  The RFP provided that offers would be evaluated on the basis of three factors:  (1) mission capability; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 169.  The mission capability evaluation factor was further divided into three sub-factors:  (1) environmental compliance; (2) management and organizational plan; and (3) staffing and workforce management plan.  Id.  The solicitation provided that offerors would be rated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for each of the mission capability sub-factors.  RFP at 170.  Of note, the solicitation required that proposals must be evaluated as acceptable under all three mission capability sub-factors in order to receive an acceptable rating for the mission capability factor as a whole.  Id.  The RFP further provided that only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable under the mission capability evaluation factor would be considered for award.  Id.  The performance work statement (PWS) provided, among other things, minimum educational requirements for certain key personnel.  AR, Tab 4, PWS at 9.  Specifically, the PWS required that the project manager (PM) and alternate project manager (APM) must each “have a college degree in engineering, mathematics, business, public administration and/or quantitative analysis and 15 or more years of experience managing base operations support functions and familiarity with Army cost and software data programs.”  Id.  During the question and answer period, an offeror asked “for the Alternate Project Manager position can 20 plus years of experience managing base operations support functions on Army installation support services or DPW [directorate of public works] O&M [operation and maintenance] contracts of equal size and complexity serve as an equivalent to the stated Certifications and Training Requirements?”  AR, Tab 19, Questions and Responses at 34.  The agency responded that it would “take this under consideration.”  Id. On December 17, 2018, the agency notified ASO that it had been included in the competitive range and provided 32 evaluation notices to ASO identifying areas of concern with its proposal.  MOL at 3.  Relevant to this protest, one of those evaluation notices asked ASO to “[p]rovide documentation to demonstrate minimum educational requirements and experience for PM and  APM to meet requirements [in accordance with] Technical Exhibit 7.4.1 - Contractor Personnel Minimum Qualifications, Licensing, and Certification...