Protest challenging the agency’s rejection of a proposal as nonresponsive is denied, where the solicitation clearly advised offerors that they must provide certain mandatory positions as well as fully burdened labor rates for those positions, and the protester did not do so. While the protester argued the missing position was included as a subcontract cost, the solicitation prohibited offerors from proposing any of the mandatory positions as subcontractors, because the contract was subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

Summit Construction & Environmental Services protested the General Services Administration’s award of a contract for building operations, maintenance, and janitorial services to DelSur SDAV Joint Venture LLC, challenging various aspects of the procurement process, including the agency’s determination that Summit’s proposal failed to comply with material solicitation requirements.

When evaluating Summit’s proposal, the agency concluded that the price proposal did not comply with certain solicitation requirements. The agency found that Summit’s manning tables omitted any reference to the mandatory position of maintenance electrician and, accordingly, Summit’s proposal contained no labor rate or burden cost information for that position. The proposal also omitted recycling removal costs.

Despite this missing information, the agency performed a price realism assessment of the costs of the omitted items, in order to determine the potential impact of those omissions on Summit’s performance. Based on its review, the agency concluded that the additional costs Summit would be required to incur in performing the omitted items would render its proposed price unrealistically low, resulting in a high probability that the contract would fail. Accordingly, the agency found the proposal unacceptable.

Summit made several arguments, including that its proposal properly included the cost of a maintenance technician under a line item for subcontracted costs. The protester also argued that while the position was required, there was no indication in the solicitation that it needed to be separately priced.

In response, the agency explained that the solicitation did not allow offerors to subcontract for the mandatory staffing requirements. Further, even if the solicitation permitted an offeror to provide a subcontractor’s full-time employee to perform the maintenance electrician requirement, Summit’s proposal failed to include the labor rate and labor burden costs for that position. Because the solicitation specifically advised offerors to submit labor rate and labor burden cost information and cautioned that failing to do so would render a proposal nonresponsive, the agency argued that its rejection of the proposal was reasonable.

GAO agreed, finding the solicitation clearly required this information, because the contact was subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Because Summit’s proposal did not include this information, GAO denied the protest.

Summit Construction & Environmental Services is represented by David A. Edelstein and Allison Geewax of Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC. The government is represented by Benjamin D. Lorber, General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.