Protest objecting to the rejection of the protester’s proposal is denied. The solicitation required offerors to propose a program manager with a master’s degree in logistics or supply chain management. The protester proposed a program manager with a master’s degree in education. GAO found that the protester had not demonstrated how a degree in education satisfied the requirements for a degree in logistics or supply chain management.
The Department of Defense United States Special Operations Command issued a solicitation seeking personnel to assist with the supply support activities. The solicitation required offerors to propose two key positions: a program manager and a senior portfolio item manger.
TPMC, Inc. submitted a proposal. DoD determined that the proposal was unacceptable. DoD determined that TPMC’s proposed program manager did not have the required qualifications. IN particular, the program manager did not have 3-years of item manages, 5-years of material management, nor a master’s degree in one of the solicitation’s listed fields—i.e., logistics management, supply chain, or another business-related field. The program manager TPMC proposed had a master’s degree in education.
TPMC protested arguing that DoD had ignored information in its program manager’s resume and incorrectly concluded that its candidate did not have the required qualifications. TPMC contended that when the program manager’s master’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and overall academic background were grouped together, the candidate had more than enough to expertise to satisfy the solicitation’s requirements.
GAO rejected this argument reasoning that TPMC had not shown how a master’s degree in education satisfied the requirement for a master’s degree in logistics or supply chain management. Moreover, GAO noted, the program manager’s resume misstated the individual’s experience in material management. It did not appear the candidate had the requisite experience in materials management. GAO saw no reason to object to the evaluation of TPMC’s proposal.
TMPC is represented by Shane M. McCall, Nicole D. Pottroff, Quinten R. Fisher, and Christopher S. Coleman of Koprince Law, LLC. The intervenor, Sunik, is represented by C. Peter Dungan, Alfred M. Wurglitz, Roger V. Abbott, and Jarrod R. Carman of Miles & Stockbridge P.C. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz and Isabelle P. Cutting of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.
