The protester asserted the agency had excluded some professional labor categories when evaluating the awardee’s professional compensation. GAO wasn’t convinced. GAO found that the categories in question—engineering technician, technical writer, air crew member—were not professional positions. These positions did not require a course of specialized instruction. Rather, the skills for these positions were acquired through on-the-job training. The agency properly excluded these categories.
Sabre Systems, Inc., GAO B-420090.4
Background
The Navy posted an RFP seeking software engineering and development services. Four offerors including Sabre Systems and American Systems Corporation, submitted proposals. Following initial awards, protests, and corrective action, the Navy ultimately awarded the contract to American Systems. Sabre protested.
Analysis
Professional Labor Categories
The FAR requires agencies to evaluate the compensation plan for professional employees. This ensures the contractor can recruit and retain quality professionals. Sabre contended the Navy had unreasonably excluded certain labor categories—e.g., engineering technician, technical writer, air crew member—when evaluating American Systems’ professional compensation plan. The Navy argued it had excluded these categories because they didn’t qualify as professionals.
GAO sided with the Navy. Applicable regulations define a professional as, among other things, requiring advanced knowledge acquired through a prolonged course of specialized instruction. Here, GAO found the categories in question only required limited course work, not an advanced course of study. Indeed, the skills for these positions were acquired through on-the-job training, not necessarily from school. The Navy reasonably excluded these categories from the assessment of professional compensation.
Professional Compensation
Sabre also argued that American Systems had proposed unrealistically low professional compensation rates. It contended the Navy had ignored the risk posed by these low rates.
GAO didn’t agree. The record showed the Navy had actually identified some risk in American Systems’ low professional compensation. But the Navy also noted that other aspects of American Systems’ total compensation plan—i.e., the number of professionals on payroll and the planned bonuses—alleviated this risk. GAO found Sabre’s arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
Sabre is represented by Alexander O. Canizares, Seth H. Locke, and Julie M. Fox of Perkins Coie LLP. The intervenor, American Systems, is represented by John E. Jensen, Megan D. Doherty, and Robert C. Starling of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Brian W. Ritter, Jr. and Morgan E. Gierhart of the Navy. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor