Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of the Army
Disposition: Protest denied.
General Counsel P.C. Highlight:
GAO denies the protest of Kaseman, LLC, based on the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Army, for services in support of the agency’s Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP).
The solicitation, which was issued on June 15, 2012, contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract line items, and with a base period of one year and two one-year option periods. The solicitation stated that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, considering the following evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance: technical/management; past performance; cost/price; and small business participation.
The agency assessed two deficiencies to Kaseman’s proposal, and it concluded that Kaseman’s proposal could not be considered for award without a major re-write or revision. Kaseman argued that neither of the deficiencies was reasonable and that the agency should have considered its proposal for award. GAO only considered one deficiency, determining that it was reasonably assessed and that it alone provided a reasonable basis for the elimination of Kaseman’s proposal from the competition.
The record supported the agency’s finding that Kaseman’s proposal failed to include an approach to accomplish the requirements of the PWS, as required by the solicitation. The solicitation expressly required offerors to submit a proposal volume consisting of the “approach” that the offeror would use “to accomplish the requirements of the [PWS].” Further, the solicitation advised offerors that the agency would evaluate “the feasibility of the offeror’s approach to accomplish the requirements of the [PWS].” Despite the solicitation provisions, the DTMA volume of Kaseman’s proposal included almost no discussion or detail regarding how Kaseman would accomplish the numerous, specific requirements contained in the PWS. Rather, the bulk of Kaseman’s DTMA volume provided general information about the firm and its teaming partners and discussed their practices and procedures for performing a professional services contract. There was essentially no discussion of specific measures that Kaseman would take to accomplish the particular requirements of this solicitation. Accordingly, GAO concluded that the agency reasonably assessed a deficiency to Kaseman’s proposal for a failure to include an approach to accomplishing the PWS requirements, as required by the solicitation.
As to Kaseman’s arguments claiming that the agency treated offerors unequally, GAO concluded that there was nothing unreasonable about the contracting officer’s determination that the competitive range offerors could resolve them without a major proposal revision or re-write. Additionally, the contracting officer did not cite these issues in his determination to exclude Kaseman’s proposal from the competitive range. Accordingly, GAO found no merit in Kaseman’s assertion that this aspect of the agency’s evaluation was unequal.