Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposed staffing is sustained, where the agency failed to meaningfully consider discrepancies in the awardee’s proposal between the PWS responsibilities and the tasks proposed to meet those requirements, and where the agency unreasonably relied on the awardee’s blanket statement that its staffing was flexible and could be adjusted to meet the agency’s needs.
Immersion Consulting LLC protested the Defense Human Resources Activity’s award of a program management support services task order to NetImpact Strategies Inc. In its prior protest of the task order, Immersion successfully alleged that the SSA’s judgments, which involved removing weaknesses and strengths from quotations, were not adequately explained in the underlying record. In the instant protest, Immersion again challenged the reasonableness of the agency’s evaluation.
First, Immersion argued that the SSA failed to evaluate pervasive discrepancies in NetImpact’s proposed staffing and should have found the awardee’s quotation unacceptable. During the initial evaluation, the agency found discrepancies in two labor categories between the PWS responsibilities listed in one chart and the discrete tasks listed in another chart. The agency assigned a weakness based on these inconsistencies, and retained this weakness during the reevaluation. The agency argued the assignment of a weakness demonstrated its consideration of the inconsistencies.
However, Immerson pointed out during its prior protest that NetImpact’s quotation contained the same type of discrepancies for every labor category, and argued the agency failed to address them during the reevaluation. GAO agreed, finding that the discrepancies were not limited to two labor categories as the agency claimed, and that the record lacked any meaningful consideration of this area.
Next, Immersion argued that the SSA unreasonably concluded that the inconsistencies in NetImpact’s staffing plan were minor, correctable, and could be addressed at the post award conference. The agency maintained that its evaluation was based on NetImpact’s plan to retain incumbent employees, as well as NetImpact’s suggestion that its staffing plan could be adjusted to meet the government’s needs. However, GAO found the agency’s reliance on NetImpact’s general representations to be unreasonable and inconsistent with the solicitation, which required vendors to demonstrate how their staffing plan supported their technical approach. Offerors were supposed to provide the labor categories, experience, and skill level of proposed personnel, labor hours, and a cross walk to the PWS requirements, not simply assurances that the contractor would provide sufficient staff or that it would be “flexible” in its approach.
Next, Immersion argued that the SSA should not have rated its quotation outstanding under the technical factor, rather than acceptable. In response, the agency maintained that the rating was consistent with the definitions in the solicitation. GAO found, however, that the agency’s analysis concerning the rating was internally inconsistent and was not reconciled by the SSA. GAO specifically stated that the evaluation documents related more to the definition of an outstanding rating, and sustained this ground of protest.
Immersion Consulting LLC is represented by Alexander B. Ginsberg and Meghan D. Doherty of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. NetImpact Strategies Inc. is represented by Terry L. Elling and Rodney M. Perry of Holland & Knight LLP. The government is represented by Hattie Russell DuBois and William C. Moorhouse, Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Young H. Cho and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.