Protest alleging that the agency did not give the protester enough time to submit final proposal revisions is sustained. During exchanges, the agency informed the protester of problems with the experience of its proposed staff. The agency first gave the protester two days to submit a revised proposal but later increased the deadline to eight days. Â GAO found that giving the protester eight days to recruit and negotiate employment agreements with new staff was unreasonable.
The Air Force issued a solicitation for a task order to provide acquisition, financial, and administrative services. The Air Force received proposals from three offerors, including MCR Federal and Tecolote Research, Inc. The Air Force selected Tecolote for award. MCR protested, alleging unstated criteria and misleading discussions. In response to the protest, the Air Force took corrective action, stating that it would it conduct additional interchanges—i.e., discussions—and allow offerors to submit final proposal revisions.
The Air Force sent two interchange notices to MCR. The first informed MCR that only five of its 58 full time equivalents had the desired level of experience. The second stated that too many of MCR’s FTEs were contingent hires. The Air Force gave MCR two days to submit a revised proposal that fixed these problems. MCR protested, claiming that it could not make the required changes within two days. In response to the protest, the Air Force took corrective action and gave MCR eight days to submit its revised proposal.
GAO agreed that MCR had not been provided enough time to revise its proposal. The Air Force attempted to argue that eight days was enough because the problems with MCR’s staff had been raised in the first protest. Thus, MCR knew well ahead of time that it would need to correct this issue.
GAO disagreed. While MCR had challenged the Air Force’s preference for more experienced staff in the first protest, GAO never addressed that issue due to the Air Force’s corrective action. Even if MCR’s staff argument had not been meritorious, the company could not have known how seriously the agency’s preference for experienced staff would impact it proposal until the agency issued interchanges after the corrective action.
GAO noted that to respond to the Air Force’s concerns and to remain competitive, MCR would have had to successfully recruit highly skilled personnel and negotiate employment contracts with them in about a week’s time. GAO did not believe that the amount of time provided to respond to interchanges had been calculated to actually allow MCR to submit a responsive proposal.
The Air Force contended that MCR did not object to a five day response time during earlier interchanges, so it should not object now. GAO found this irrelevant. In the first round of interchanges, MCR was only required to fill in salary data and clarify the experience of its personal. It did not actually have to retain dozens of new employees.
MCR is represented by Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., J. Ryan Frazee, and William A. Roberts, III of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Alexis J. Bernstein, Jason R. Smith, and Jacquelyn Fiorello of the U.S. Air Force. GAO attorneys Joshua R. Gillerman and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
