Protest challenging agency’s evaluation and award decision is denied, where the solicitation directed offerors to propose their own mix of staffing level, labor categories, and staffing to meet the requirement, and where the agency reasonably evaluated the risk in the awardee’s lower staffing levels and found it to be only moderate.
Metro Productions Government Services LLC protested the Army’s award of a contract for communications support services to District Communications Group, arguing that the Amy misevaluated technical proposals, failed to evaluate offerors on a common basis, and made a flawed best value determination.
First, Metro argued that the Army failed to properly evaluate the risk associated with DCG’s inadequate staffing levels and that the experience proposed by DCG failed to comply with the solicitation’s minimum requirements. In response, the Army explained that the solicitation did not establish any minimum staffing levels or labor hour requirement; instead, the solicitation permitted offerors to determine the appropriate staffing levels, labor categories, and personnel. The Army further argued that it properly considered the risk associated with DCG’s proposed staffing, labor hours, and personnel. Additionally, the Army noted that DCG submitted resumes demonstrating that its proposed personnel met the solicitation’s experience requirements.
GAO sided with the agency. GAO found that DCG’s offer adequately laid our proposed labor categories, associated descriptions, experience, and labor hours. GAO also found that the Army reasonably concluded that DCG’s risk of unsuccessful performance was no worse than moderate. As to the experience of DCG’s proposed personnel, GAO concluded that it had no basis to find that the agency should have concluded that DCG’s personnel failed to meet the solicitation’s experience requirements.
Next, Metro argued the Army permitted DCG to take exception to the solicitation’s ground rules when it accepted DCG’s proposal to meet only a subset of the work required. According to Metro, DCG proposed an inadequate number of labor hours and staff to fill certain requirements and at the same time promised to meet additional contract requirements by bringing n personnel after award. Metro alleged that DCG bid on portions of requirements that it knew and understood and then hedged against uncertainty by stating that it could bring on more resources to cover requirements not included in its bid.
However, GAO noted that the solicitation did not require offerors to propose to a common standard, and did not establish minimum staffing hours or a minimum labor hour requirement. Instead, the agency expected the contractor to determine the appropriate staffing levels, labor category, and labor mix.
GAO noted that Metro’s complaint was rooted in the differences in the offerors’ proposals. DCG bid on the portion of requirements that it knew and understood and then hedged against the uncertainty by stating that it could bring on more resources later when necessary to cover the remaining requirements that it did not include in its bid. DCG proposed to use “reach-back” capabilities to backfill staff to provide surge support depending on the volume and complexity of the Army’s needs. GAO found that any alleged differences in the Army’s evaluation of proposals were due to differences between the offers.
Metro Productions Government Services LLC is represented by Jeffery M. Chiow, Lucas T. Hanback, and Neil H. O’Donnell of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, PC. The District Communications Group LLC is represented by H. Todd Whay of Whay Law Firm. The government is represented by Jonathan A. Hardage, Department of the Army. GAO attorneys Young S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
