Operations Services, Inc. (PANMCC-24-0000-010176)

B-422772.2 Published: Feb 18, 2025. Publicly Released: Feb 25, 2025. Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Operations Services, Inc. (OSI), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the Department of the Army's issuance of a task order to Logmet, LLC, pursuant to request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. PANMCC-24-P-0000010176, "to support the Contingency Operations Warehouse (COW) [for] the XVIII Airborne Corps." Dismissal Request, exh. 1, Original RTOP at 1. We dismiss OSI's protest because it is based on a misstatement of the solicitation requirements and OSI's speculation regarding the contents of Logmet's proposal. View Decision Decision Matter of: Operations Services, Inc. File: B-422772.2 Date: February 18, 2025 Shomari B. Wade, Esq., Timothy M. McLister, Esq., Jordan N. Malone, Esq., and Olivia C. Bellini, Esq., Greenberg Traurig LLP, for the protester. Major Jules L. Szanton, Robert B. Neill, Esq., and Anthony V. Lenze, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest based on a misstatement of the solicitation requirements and the protester’s speculation regarding the awardee’s proposed approach is dismissed for failing to state a sufficient basis for protest. DECISION Operations Services, Inc. (OSI), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the Department of the Army’s issuance of a task order to Logmet, LLC, pursuant to request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. PANMCC-24-P-0000010176, “to support the Contingency Operations Warehouse (COW) [for] the XVIII Airborne Corps.” Dismissal Request, exh. 1, Original RTOP at 1.[1] We dismiss OSI’s protest because it is based on a misstatement of the solicitation requirements and OSI’s speculation regarding the contents of Logmet’s proposal. BACKGROUND On May 21, 2024, the Army issued the RTOP pursuant to the procedures set forth in subpart 8.4 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The solicitation, which was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses that hold certain General Services Administration multiple award schedule contracts, sought fixed-price proposals for “the appropriate amounts of qualified labor and management necessary to [perform the solicitation’s requirements].” Id. The solicitation provided that the source selection decision would be made on a lowest-price technically acceptable basis and established two evaluation factors: mission capability and price. Id. at 33. Under the mission capability factor, the solicitation established three subfactors--phase‑in approach, management approach, and staffing approach--and provided that a proposal must be evaluated as acceptable under each subfactor in order to be eligible for award. Id. With regard to the staffing approach subfactor, the solicitation directed each offeror to submit a staffing plan/staffing matrix that reflected staff with “adequate skill levels in sufficient quantity to successfully perform the requirement.” Id. at 31. In this context, the solicitation directed offerors to address “how the proposed staff is sufficient to complete all the tasks in the PWS [performance work statement]” and to “detail roles, responsibilities, and address qualifications, education, experience, personnel security clearances, and certifications as required by the PWS.” Id. at 31. Finally, the solicitation included technical exhibit 3, titled “Historical Workload Data,” that identified the various tasks and associated levels of effort, as well as the labor categories and associated levels of effort, that had previously been used to perform the solicitation requirements; a total of 19 full-time equivalent personnel (FTEs) were identified in that technical exhibit. See Tech. exh. 3, Historical Workload Data at 1-2. On or before the June 14 closing date, initial proposals were submitted by seven offerors, including OSI and Logmet.[2] Consistent with the flexibility the solicitation permitted in proposed staffing, OSI’s initial proposal included a staffing plan with only [redacted] proposed FTEs. In evaluating OSI’s proposal, the agency rated OSI’s proposal unacceptable under the staffing approach subfactor. In documenting the basis for the unacceptable rating, the agency noted that OSI’s staffing plan included “[redacted] for which no historical workload exists,” noting that OSI had proposed these personnel to perform “the workload that is historically completed by Supply Technicians.” Initial Technical Evaluation at 4-5. The agency further noted that OSI’s proposal “failed to address how the [redacted] would perform the same duties as a Supply Technician,” adding that the proposed personnel “do[] [not] possess the experience or qualifications outlined in [the solicitation for supply technicians].” Id. at 4.