United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: Dellew Corporation

File: B-407159

Date: November 16, 2012

Jonathan A. DeMella, Esq., James F. Nagle, Esq., and Kate H. Kennedy, Esq., 

Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP, for the protester.

Debra J. Talley, Esq., and Leslie A. Nepper, Esq., Department of the Army, for the 

agency.

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that terms of solicitation for logistical support failed to provide adequate 

workload data on which offerors could base their proposals is denied where the 

solicitation’s provision of notional equipment density, percentages of equipment 

types, and key staffing positions by installation was sufficient information on which 

offerors could compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis.

DECISION

Dellew Corporation protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W52P1J12-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Materiel Command (AMC), 

for integrated logistics support services (ILSS-2). Dellew asserts that the Army 

failed to provide sufficient historical workload data concerning the solicitation.

We deny the protest. 

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Army Sustainment Command (ASC) serves as AMC’s executive agent for 

property operations in South West Asia, the Continental U.S. (CONUS), and the 

U.S. Army Pacific Command in support of the execution of the Army’s multi-faceted 

materiel management process. In this role, ASC has a requirement for logistics 

support, property accountability services, and maintenance, including professional 

readiness management, for several programs, including Left Behind Equipment 

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to 

a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has 

been approved for public release.
Page 2 B-407159 

(LBE), Unit Maintained Equipment (UME), Theater Provided Equipment, 

Pre-deployment Training Equipment (PDTE), Property Accountability Augmentation 

Teams (PAAT), and Supply Support Activity (SSA). Support services are to be 

performed in accordance with the performance work statement (PWS), setting forth 

primarily performance-based requirements which rely on the contractor’s 

experience in order to determine the methods to meet the requirements. The RFP 

encompasses three regions: the 401st Army Field Support Brigade (AFSB) 

(Afghanistan), 404th AFSB (Pacific), and 406th AFSB (CONUS East). The RFP 

contemplated the award of one contract for each region, each with a 1-year base 

period with 2 option years. The 404th AFSB, a small business set-aside, is the only 

aspect of the RFP protested by Dellew. 

The solicitation included both fixed-price (FFP) and cost reimbursable (CPFF) 

contract line items (CLIN), broken down by site (e.g., Fort Lewis) and program 

requirement (e.g., LBE/UME, PDTE, etc.). Overall, the base year included 

76 CLINs, 43 of which were CPFF. The fixed-price CLINs included base staff at 

each site, comprised of seven PWS-identified key positions, such as a program 

manager, property book team chief, logistics analyst, and master supply technician. 

Offerors could also include 10 non-key positions in the base staff, including data 

entry clerks, administrative assistants, equipment operators, inventory specialists, 

and various warehouse personnel for SSA work. The cost reimbursable CLINs 

included transition-in labor and surge staff. Offerors were instructed to carefully 

consider the location, workload and any other relevant factor(s) so as to staff the 

FFP requirement in the most cost effective and efficient manner. RFP § 3.H. No 

minimum or maximum number of employees or materials was specified. 

Offerors were to prepare their offers using provided program workload data for each 

type of required work at each installation, expressed as density (i.e., the total 

number of commodities at an installation), with percentages for each commodity 

type. Question/Answer Nos. 118, 120; RFP attach. 18. The workload data was in 

proportion to, but not the actual current workload at each site. Supplemental 

Agency Report (SAR) 1 at 2. Further, the RFP did not otherwise include historical 

workload data. When Dellew requested the government to provide historical data, 

including the type and number of transactions performed on an annual basis, the 

agency responded that: “Historical workload data is not available at this time and 

has minimal impact to the workload required.” Question/Answer No. 87. Offerors 

were instead referred to RFP attachment 18 (the notional program workload data). 

Id. On June 19, 2012, Dellew again requested additional information, including, 

e.g., the number of wheeled and tactical vehicles within the identified density figures 

and percentages; the specific equipment used in exercises; the hours per exercise; 

and the annual hours for each FTE. In response, the agency explained that “[t]he 

data requested would present an unacceptable operational security risk. All 

applicable density information has been provided.” RFP amend. 0006. 

 
Page 3 B-407159 

On June 8, Dellew submitted a question requesting a site visit for the 404th Region, 

to which the agency responded (on June 15) that it would “conduct site visits on an 

as needed basis.” Question/Answer No. 86. No other offerors requested site visits. 

Agency Report (AR) at 9. On June 18, Dellew emailed the contracting officer 

requesting “an immediate site visit for Schofield Barracks, Hawaii,” part of the 

404th Region. Protest attach. 6. The agency did not respond to this request prior to 

the June 25 closing date for receipt of proposals. Dellew did not submit a proposal; 

instead, prior to the closing time, Dellew filed an agency-level protest challenging 

the lack of a site visit and the lack of more detailed workload data. The agency 

denied that protest on August 9, and Dellew then filed this protest with our Office. 

DISCUSSION

Dellew asserts that the RFP was flawed because it failed to provide sufficient 

historical workload data for prospective offerors to calculate their fixed pricing for 

staffing. In the protester’s view, by furnishing only the notional data, without more, 

the agency prevented it from assessing the number of full time employees (FTE) 

necessary to meet the performance obligations and provided incumbent offerors 

with an unfair advantage. According to the protester, but for the agency’s failure to 

provide more information, Dellew, with its “substantial history” performing similar 

contracts and 17 years of managing and operating logistics contracts at Schofield 

Barracks, could have submitted a successful proposal. Protest at 2. 

As a general rule, a contracting agency must give sufficient detail in a solicitation to 

enable offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis. Crown 

Contract Servs., B-288573, Oct. 31, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 179 at 2. Further, when an 

agency solicits offers for a requirements contract on the basis of estimated 

quantities, the agency must base its estimates on the best information available. 

While the estimates need not be absolutely correct, the estimated quantities must 

be reasonably accurate representations of anticipated needs. Inventory Accounting 

Serv., Inc., B-271483, July 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD ¶ 35 at 2-3. 

Dellew has not established that the solicitation failed to include adequate 

information for preparing a proposal. While Dellew asserts that the agency should 

have provided more specific information, the record shows that this was not 

reasonably possible or necessary. In this regard, the record indicates that the 

number of pieces of equipment (density) and location of equipment under the 

programs covered by this solicitation have been fluctuating due to policy decisions 

and unit deployments, with the specific amount of labor required in the future 

likewise expected to change from site to site and from month to month. Agency 

Report (AR) at 5, 7. Due to these fluctuations, actual workload data was obsolete 

before the solicitation was issued. Further, more specific information was deemed 
Page 4 B-407159 

by the agency sensitive and/or classified and thus unavailable to all offerors.1 AR 

at 3; SAR 1 at 3; SAR 2 at 1. Accordingly, the agency provided only the notional 

data for offerors’ use. SAR 1 at 3.

Further, the record indicates that the notional data was reasonably related to likely 

workload. In this regard, in calculating the notional data, the agency took actual 

workload data for each installation for the 2 months prior to issuing the RFP, which 

best represented the requirements at that time. SAR 2 at 2. These figures were 

slightly randomized in order to provide numbers that were realistic, but avoided the 

release of sensitive specific equipment densities. Id. at 1. In this regard, the record 

shows that the notional density data for each installation was within 1% of the actual 

figures for the preceding months. SAR 2 at 1. 

In addition, the record indicates that the notional data, in conjunction with the other 

provisions and data in the solicitation, furnished offerors an adequate basis for 

preparing their proposals without undue risk. In this regard, the notional data 

provided total equipment density for each type of work (LBE, PDTE, and PAAT) for 

each installation within a specific region. RFP attach. 18. The notional data further 

specified the percentage of commodities within each work type at each installation. 

For example, for Fort Lewis in the 404th Region, the RFP identified the LBE density 

as 1,350 commodities, of which 34% represented tactical vehicles, 32% non-MSI 

(maintenance significant items), and 12% medical and dental equipment. RFP 

attach. 18. (Other commodities, such as construction equipment, non-tactical 

wheeled vehicles (commercial design), communications equipment, and 

ammunition were identified as 2% to less than 1%. Id.) The PWS also identified 

the scope of work and key personnel for each work type. In addition, the data 

necessary for scheduling and determining the numbers of required personnel were 

available from several open sources, such as the Army’s maintenance allocation 

chart, which includes the standard times for all service work. AR at 3. 

The agency has further explained how the offerors could use the notional 

information to arrive at a bottom-up calculation of the fixed-price, base personnel 

requirements for each installation. SAR 1 at 4-8. For example, as explained by the 

agency, a basis of estimate for the staffing mix for a typical installation, such as 

 

1 Army logistics data is considered sensitive, and the Army is prohibited from 

providing the data over commercial networks, such as email or FedBizOpps. Army 

Regulation 25-2, ¶ 1-5. According to the agency, digital forms of the information 

can only be provided to offerors with Army-accredited information systems. SAR 2 

at 3. While hard copy versions could be furnished, the agency states that they 

would be unusable because any recreation of the data in electronic form, without 

use of an accredited system, would be prohibited. Id. Since not all offerors had 

accredited systems, the agency provided the notional data in order to open the 

competition to a larger group of competitors. Id.
Page 5 B-407159 

Fort Lewis, begins with a fixed management staff that will not vary based on 

workload. Using the equipment density figure of 1,350 units, as broken down by the 

equipment type percentages, and the average times for preventative maintenance 

for the different equipment, an offeror could calculate the number of operators 

needed, in addition to master supply technicians and managers, a property book 

team chief, an assistant program manager, and a program manager. SAR 1 at 7-8. 

Moreover, the agency expected the fixed price, fixed base staffing to be minimal 

and without fluctuation, with the majority of labor costs instead under the costreimbursable surge CLINs, leaving the agency to absorb the risk of unforeseeable 

equipment densities/labor requirements. AR at 5, 7.

Noting that the actual workload numbers fluctuated up or down at each installation 

(ranging from 4% to 22%) in the 2 months following the RFP, Dellew asserts that it 

was arbitrary not to provide a larger pool of data (e.g., 3, 6, or 12 months). Final 

Comments at 2. In our view, however, the solicitation’s data was reasonable. In 

this regard, given the fluctuating nature of the agency’s requirements which made 

historical data untrustworthy, the security limits on providing more specific 

information, and the totality of the available data, the agency reasonably determined 

that the notional data (coupled with offerors’ own experience in these types of 

contracts) provided Dellew and the other offerors with sufficient information to 

prepare a proposal. In particular, Dellew has not shown that furnishing additional 

historical data, data which because of the fluctuations was an unreliable predictor of 

future workloads, would have better enabled offerors to anticipate such fluctuations. 

In addition, further supporting the conclusion that the RFP contained sufficient 

information for offerors to compete intelligently is the fact that the Army received 

eight proposals for the 404th Region, four of which were evaluated as technically 

acceptable, and none of which indicated that the offeror viewed the specifications 

as inadequate. See Metfab Eng’g, Inc.; Mart Corp., B-265934, B-265934.2, 

Jan. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD ¶ 93 at 3. Under these circumstances, the agency’s 

decision not to provide more detailed workload data was unobjectionable.2

 

 

2 Similarly, we find unobjectionable the agency’s refusal to provide Dellew with a 

site visit to Schofield Barracks, one of the 404th Region’s four installations. In this 

regard, site visits and pre-proposal conferences are held at the discretion of the 

contracting agency when necessary to clarify contract requirements. Caltech Serv.

Corp., B-240726, Dec. 18, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 497 at 5. Here, in our view, since the 

RFP provided sufficient information on which offerors could base their proposals, as 

evidenced by the fact that no other offeror requested a site visit, the failure to 

provide Dellew with a site visit was not an abuse of the agency’s discretion. 

(Indeed, given Dellew’s claimed 17 years of managing and operating logistics 

contracts at Schofield Barracks, Protest at 2, it is especially not clear what value a 

site visit would have had for Dellew.) 
Page 6 B-407159 

As for Dellew’s argument that potential incumbent offerors would possess an unfair 

competitive advantage, the government is not required to compensate for a 

competitive advantage derived from a firm’s status as the incumbent contractor, 

unless the advantage resulted from improper preferential treatment or unfair action. 

The Mangi Envtl. Group, Inc., B-299721.3, Aug. 2, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 144 at 3. 

Dellew has not shown the existence of either improper preferential treatment or 

unfair action in this regard. In any case, we note that Dellew could not have been 

competitively prejudiced by any alleged advantage possessed by the incumbent 

contractors because the record shows that no incumbent offerors submitted 

proposals for the 404th Region. See Joint Mgmt. & Tech. Servs., B-294229, 

B-294229.2, Sept. 22, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 208 at 7 (prejudice is an essential 

element of every viable protest).

The protest is denied.

Lynn H. Gibson

General Counsel