The protester challenged the agency's evaluation of proposals and argued that the awardee was ineligible due to alleged errors in its System for Award Management (SAM) registration. The protester contended that inaccuracies in the awardee's SAM registration—specifically regarding ownership information and joint venture representations—rendered the registration so deficient that the awardee should not have been considered "registered" under FAR provision 52.204-7. GAO denied the protest, holding that minor informalities in SAM registrations generally do not undermine the validity of an award and are waivable by the agency without prejudice to other offerors, particularly where the awardee's actual identity was accurately presented in its proposal.
Altus Technology Solutions, GAO, B-424316; B-424316.2
- Background - The Air Force issued a solicitation for operations, maintenance, and support services. The award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis. After receiving five proposals and conducting discussions, the agency awarded the contract to the awardee, a mentor-protégé joint venture, based on its lower price of $91 million compared to the protester's $106 million, despite the protester receiving a higher program management rating. The protester filed this protest challenging the evaluation, the tradeoff decision, and the awardee's eligibility.
- Program Management Evaluation -- The protester argued the agency overlooked that the awardee did not propose dedicated quality control employees, instead assigning quality control duties to staff with other responsibilities. GAO denied this argument, finding the record showed the agency understood and evaluated the awardee's quality control approach. The protester's complaint was rooted not in any solicitation requirement for full-time dedicated quality control personnel, but in its preference for its own approach.
- Price Evaluation - The protester argued the awardee failed to propose labor pay rates consistent with applicable collective bargaining agreements and that the awardee's price was too low to procure required equipment. GAO denied this argument, noting the solicitation made clear that price would be evaluated only at the total overall evaluated price (TOEP) level, not at the more granular labor rate level. The supporting backup pricing data was not required to be submitted, and the protester expressly disclaimed any price realism argument.
- SAM Registration Eligibility - The protester argued the awardee was ineligible for award because it failed to enter mandatory information about its immediate and highest-level owners and inaccurately completed representations about its mentor-protégé joint venture status in SAM. GAO denied this argument, noting it was undisputed that the awardee had an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission and award. Citing prior decisions, GAO held that minor informalities related to SAM registrations—including errors in identifying immediate and highest-level owners—generally do not undermine the validity of an award and are waivable by the agency.
The protester is represented by Craig A. Holman, Amanda J. Sherwood, Thomas A. Pettit, and Adrienne Jackson of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The intervenor, VetPride-EMI Maintenance Solutions, LLC, is represented by J. Alex Ward, James A. Tucker, and Jillian I. Stern of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The government is represented by Colonel Justin A. Silverman, Michael J. Farr, W. Jacob Worthan, and Beatrice K. Foster of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.