The agency found the protester’s proposal unacceptable under the solicitation’s experience factor. The protester argued the agency unreasonably disregarded the experience of the company president. GAO rejected the argument. The solicitation did not require the agency to assess the experience of individuals when assessing experience of the offeror. Instead, key personnel were evaluated under a separate staffing subfactor.
Logistix, Inc., GAO B-421341
Background
The Army Corps of Engineers issued an RFP for repair and maintenance of water control structures. Logistix, Inc. and Ajanta Consulting submitted proposals. The Army determined Logistix’s proposal was unacceptable under the experience factor. Following award to Ajanta, Logistix protested.
Analysis
Logistix’s Experience
Logistix argued its unacceptable rating under the experience factor wasn’t justified. GAO found the unacceptable rating was warranted. Logistic did not submit any references for contracts on which it served a prime contractor or a joint venture. It had not demonstrated performance similar work. The projects Logistix had submitted were performed by another company.
Founder/President’s Experience
Logistix complained the Corps had overlooked the experience of the company president. GAO found the argument meritless. Nothing in the solicitation required the Corps to consider work experience of an individual when assessing an offeror’s experience. Rather, the qualifications of key personnel were considered under a separate staffing subfactor.
Logistix is represented by Lauren R. Brier, Antonio R. Franco, and Katherine B. Burrows of PilieroMazza PLLC. The intervenor, Ajanta, is represented Stowell Holcomb of Jackson Holcomb LLP. The agency is represented by E. Christopher Lambert, Nancy D. Thomas, and James Pigott of the Army. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor