Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Experience Requirements
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: An offeror that fails to meet the stated experience requirements is not acceptable for award.
Jungang Automotive Company (Jungang) protests the rejection of its proposal under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army (Army), for maintenance, repair, and warehousing of war reserve material and in-use assets.
The RFP provided for the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offer. A rating of unacceptable under any technical subfactor would be rated technically unacceptable overall. Specifically, the RFP required offerors to show at least two years experience in logistical support and maintenance of types of equipment and services, at least five years experience on the resume for a fuel tanks manager, and at least three years experience on the resume for an aerospace ground equipment shop foreman.
Jungang’s proposal was found to be unacceptable since its prior experience only involved vehicle maintenance and did not show experience with other types of required equipment and services. Additionally, Jungang’s proposed fuel tanks manager did not have five years of experience, and its proposed aerospace ground equipment shop foreman did not have three years of experience.
GAO will not conduct a new evaluation or substitute their judgment for that of the agency but will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord with the RFP evaluation criteria. GAO finds that the Army reasonably evaluated Jungang’s proposal to be unacceptable under the prior experience and personnel qualifications subfactors. Specifically, Jungang’s proposal did not address experience in a number of areas as required by the RFP. Concerning the fuel tanks manager’s and aerospace ground equipment shop foreman’s experience, GAO finds that the Army’s evaluation was not unreasonable where there is no basis to question the Army’s judgment. The protest is denied.