Ecolog Deutschland GmbH (W912PB-25-R-3000)

B-423548 Aug 05, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ecolog Deutschland GmbH, of Dusseldorf, Germany, protests the award of a contract to Fluor Intercontinental Germany GmbH, of Greenville, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912PB-25-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services in Bavaria, Germany. Ecolog argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated as unacceptable, and the agency should have rejected Fluor's proposal as unreasonably priced. 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: Ecolog Deutschland GmbH File: B-423548 Date: August 5, 2025 James M. White, Esq., Marshall & White, PLLC, for the protester. Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Nicole A. Williamson, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, for Fluor Intercontinental Germany GmbH, the intervenor. Robert B. Neill, Esq., Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Lieutenant Colonel Peter DiPaola, Shelley M. O'Hara, Esq., and Major Joshua B. Fix, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency misevaluated protester's proposal as unacceptable under experience criteria is denied where the evaluation reasonably determined that the protester's proposed candidate for a position lacked relevant experience as defined in the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency improperly awarded contract at an unreasonably high price is denied where the record shows the agency made a reasonable price reasonableness assessment by comparing the awardee's proposed price to those of other offerors and to a government estimate, both of which supported the agency's conclusion that the awardee's price was not unreasonably high. DECISION Ecolog Deutschland GmbH, of Dusseldorf, Germany, protests the award of a contract to Fluor Intercontinental Germany GmbH, of Greenville, South Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W912PB-25-R-3000, issued by the Department of the Army for logistics support services in Bavaria, Germany. Ecolog argues that its proposal was unreasonably evaluated as unacceptable, and the agency should have rejected Fluor's proposal as unreasonably priced. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on December 20, 2024, sought proposals to provide logistics support services[1] for United States and allied military forces during exercises and other operations in the Hohenfels, Grafenwoehr, Vilseck, and Ansbach training areas in Germany. The RFP contemplated the award of a requirements contract to the offeror submitting the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal for a base year and two option years. AR, Tab 3, Conformed RFP at 3, 57. The procurement utilized Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 solicitation procedures for commercial services under FAR part 12. Corrected Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 2. The RFP identified three technical factors that would be evaluated to determine technical acceptability: technical experience, subcontracting, and supplier performance risk. Conformed RFP at 12-14. As relevant to the protest, there were two subfactors under the technical experience factor. Under subfactor 1, the evaluation would assess whether the offeror's experience as a prime contractor in 5 of the preceding 8 years showed the performance of relevant experience. Under subfactor 2, the agency would make the same assessment as under subfactor 1, but with respect to two of the offeror's proposed personnel: the program manager and the alternate program manager. Id. at 13, 59. The RFP also provided detailed specifications to define relevant experience under both subfactors. It first identified six “elements of [e]xperience” that were related to field training or logistic support services: Project Management Shuttle Bus and On-Call Transportation Services Distribution and set up items Field Dining, Food Service Facility Management, and Food Preparation, inclusive of associated personnel Field Equipment Acquisition and Management Field Laundry, Shower, and Hand-wash facilities. Id. at 13. The RFP then described the importance of the six elements in determining whether experience would be considered relevant: “Relevant” is to be determined when each reference provided includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope. A contractor's experience is similar in scope for the purpose of this evaluation factor when the contractor demonstrates that each contract reference includes experience in every element identified above, specifically a. through f. Id.