Protest alleging that awardee made a misrepresentation in its proposal is sustained. The awardee stated that one of its key personnel had nine years of experience, which exceeded the five-year minimum requirement. GAO found that the proposed individual had less than a year of relevant management experience. The awardee misrepresented the experience of its key personnel, and the agency relied on that misrepresentation in making the award. GAO recommended disqualification of the awardee.
Background
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a solicitation seeking to award a task for IT services. The solicitation identified six key personnel, including a project operations manager. The solicitation stated that the project operations manager had to have a minimum of five years experience managing projects.
ICE received proposals from, among others, Insight Technology Solutions and AP Ventures. ICE found that AP’s proposal was superior to Insight’s. ICE found that AP had proposed personnel with significantly more experience than the minimum requirements. In particular, ICE was impressed with AP’s project operations manager, who had nine years of experience.
Insight filed a protest alleging that AP had misrepresented the experience of its project operations manager, and that ICE had disparately evaluated proposals.
Legal Analysis
- Awardee Made a Material Misrepresentation – AP stated in its proposal that its project manager had nine years of relevant experience. After requesting additional information from AP, GAO determined the proposed individual only had about 11 months of relevant experience managing projects. Nothing in the record supported AP’s claim of nine years of experience. AP made a misrepresentation.
- ICE Relied on the MIsrepresentation – When evaluating proposals, ICE specifically found that AP’s project manager had exceeded the requirements. ICE attempted to argue that this finding was not material to the award decisions. But GAO noted that the soliciaton specified that the project operations managers “shall have” five years experience. ICE relied exclusively on evaluating key personnel. Had AP properly represented this individual’s experience, ICE could not have concluded that the individual exceeded the experience requirements.
- ICE Disparately Evaluated Proposals – Insight alleged that ICE had desperately evaluated proposals by assessing a “raises-confidence observation” to AP’s approach to back-filing vacancies, but did not assess the same “raises-confidence” to Insight for a similar approach. GAO agreed, finding that each offeror’s approach to back-filling vacancies was the same, and ICE had not reasonably explained how they allegedly differed.
- GAO Recommends Disqualification – Exclusion of an offeror is warranted for a material misrepresentation in a proposal. GAO recommended that ICE terminate the task order awarded to AP and reevaluate proposals.
Insight is represented by Alexander B. Ginsberg, and Meghan D. Doherty of Pillsbury Winthrip Shaw PIttman LLP, The intervenor, AP, is represented by Aron C. Beezley, PatrickR. Quigley, Lisa A. Markman, Sarah S. Osborne, and Nathaniel J. Greeson of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The agency is represented by Andrew W. Wagner and Javier A. Farfan of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
