Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

Published on January 8, 2025 • Law

Sometimes, The Devil Is Not In the Details

Katarzyna Hurova | Shutterstock

The protester claimed the awardee's proposal was ineligible for award because its staffing plan did not have the level of detail required by the solicitation requirements. GAO denied, finding the awardee's proposal satisfied a reasonable interpretation of the RFP.

Acuity International, LLC, GAO B-422420.4; B-422420.5

Protest - Offerors were required to provide a staffing matrix with a breakdown of hours for each labor category, with each labor category mapped to sections and subsections of the SOW. The protester claimed the awardee's staffing matrix and basis of estimate did not comply with several solicitation requirements.
Artificial Inflation - The protester argued the awardee impermissibly included staffing for tasks that were not required by the RFP. This allegedly resulted in the awardee artificially inflating its proposed level of effort. GAO found that extra tasks were indeed added, but they did not impede the agency's understanding of how the awardee would staff the relevant section.
Breakdown of Hours - The protester also contended the awardee failed to provide a "breakdown of hours for each labor category." The awardee did not allocate a portion of the hours proposed for each labor category to specific SOW sections and subsections. Instead, it apportioned the total number of labor hours proposed for the contract to the labor categories. GAO found the awardee's proposal complied with a reasonable interpretation of the RFP's requirement. GAO did not think the RFP required such specific detail that the protester claimed.
Basis of Estimate - The protester further asserted that the awardee's proposal did not include the level of detail required by the RFP. The agency did not dispute that the awardee's proposal failed to comply in this respect. Rather, it responded that the matter was irrelevant because the agency did not use any offeror's basis of estimate in the evaluation. GAO deemed that the agency waived the requirement to submit a basis of estimate requirement by accepting the awardee's proposal. Hence, GAO denied the protest in its entirety.

The protester was represented by J. Hunter Bennett, Jason A. Carey, Andrew R. Guy, and Moushmi Patil of Covington & Burling LLP. The intervenor was represented by Matthew Howell and Rachel Schwartz ofCozen O’Connor. The agency was represented by Michael Kiffney and Kimberly M. Shackelford of DHS. Michelle Litteken and Christina Sklarew of GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.