The protester raised multiple arguments to challenge a task order. GAO dismissed the protest finding all of the challenges relied on two unsupported assumptions: (1) the staffing plans needed to mirror the labor categories, and (2) that the awardee "likely" proposed less than 19 Full-Time Equivalent Personnel (FTEs).
Operations Services, Inc., GAO B-422772.2
- Protest - The agency issued a task order to support the Contingency Operations Warehouse (COW) for the XVIII Airborne Corps. The protester presented multiple arguments challenging the issuance. However, GAO pointed out that all these allegations were based on two unsupported assumptions. This resulted in GAO dismissing the protest.
- Unsupported Assumptions -
- Staffing Plans & Labor Categories: The protester believed the solicitation required offerors' staffing plans to mirror the labor categories and levels of effort identified in technical exhibit 3. GAO found that neither the solicitation nor the agency's discussions reflected such a "mandate." On the contrary, the solicitation permitted alternative approaches so long as the offeror adequately described how it would perform the contract using an alternative approach.
- Full-Time Equivalent Personnel: The protester also believed the awardee "likely" proposed less than 19 FTEs. To support its argument, it presented calculations of "possible pricing scenarios" that could have led to the awardee's total proposed price. GAO rejected this "reverse engineer" attempt as speculation.
The protester was represented by Shomari B. Wade, Timothy M. McLister, Jordan N. Malone, and Olivia C. Bellini of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The agency was represented by Jules L. Szanton, Robert B. Neill, and Anthony V. Lenze, of the Army. Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew of Office of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
-- Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor