Protest that the awardee misrepresented the availability of incumbent staff is sustained, where the awardee’s proposal represented that it had already negotiated contingent offers of employment when it had not, and where the awardee did not obtain prior consent from incumbent staff to use resumes in its proposal.
Sev1Tech Inc. protested the Coast Guard’s award of a professional services task order to Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc., challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s staffing proposal.
The solicitation directed offerors to submit resumes for 26 positions, of which six were identified as key positions. The protester proposed a team comprised of 95 percent incumbent personnel and provided resumes for 18 incumbent personnel. The protester stated that it had met with the current employees on two occasions and negotiated exclusive letters of commitment.
The awardee provided the names and resumes for 10 of the incumbent staff that Sev1Tech proposed. The awardee’s proposal stated that it had reached out to and negotiated contingent offers of employment with candidates for each position. The awardee also proposed a high level of retention of incumbent personnel. The agency found the proposals were essentially equal and made award to STI-TEC based on its lower price. This protest followed.
Sev1Tech contends that the awardee’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation because STI-TEC proposed personnel for which it did not have a reasonable expectation would be available for performance under the task order. Specifically, the protester argued the awardee did not obtain permission to use the resumes of incumbent personnel in its proposal and did not contact the individuals concerning working on the task order until after the task order was awarded.
In response, the Coast Guard noted that the RFP did not require offerors to provide commitment letters or signed contingent offers of employment. Further, the agency argued that the awardee’s proposal clearly implied that it did not have firm commitments from all the personnel it proposed. Nonetheless, the agency expected STI-TEC to be able to provide the personnel, given its stated commitment to retention of incumbent personnel.
However, GAO found that the awardee received the resumes for the incumbent staff from its proposed subcontractor, which maintained a database that included the resumes of staff who performed under a previous task order. Additionally, STI-TEC admitted that it did not contact incumbent staff until after it was notified of the award.
GAO concluded that the awardee’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation regarding its contact and negotiation with incumbent employees and agreed the awardee did not have permission to use those employees’ resumes in its proposal. While the proposal did not suggest the awardee had a firm commitment from these employees, it clearly stated that STI-TEC had negotiated contingent offers of employment with candidates for each position, when in fact it had not.
STI-TEC explained that the statement in the proposal was copied and pasted from another proposal and was made in error. STI-TEC also argued that it reasonably believed that it would employ the incumbent staff on the contract based on its historical incumbent capture rate. However, GAO explained the awardee had an obligation to ensure the accuracy of its proposal. Further, the awardee’s belief in its ability to capture incumbent personnel did not negate the misrepresentation in its proposal.
GAO found this misrepresentation to be material because the Coast Guard relied on the resumes of incumbent staff that STI-TEC submitted and, as a result, the misrepresentation likely had a significant impact on the evaluation. The Coast Guard identified a strength in STI-TEC’s proposal under the management approach subfactor that relied in part on the large number of incumbent resumes provided in the proposal. In addition, the Coast Guard identified multiple strengths in STITEC’s proposal based on the incumbent resumes under the staffing approach subfactor. On this basis, GAO sustained the protest.
GAO recommended that the Coast Guard reevaluate STI-TEC’s proposal, taking into consideration the awardee’s misrepresentations concerning the resumes that STI-TEC submitted, and make a new selection decision. GAO also recommended the protester be reimbursed its costs.
Sev1Tech Inc. is represented by Stephen P. Ramaley, C. Peter Dungan, and Jason Blindauer, Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Solutions Through Innovative Technologies Inc. is represented by Barbara A. Duncombe, Suzanne Sumner, Erin R. Davis, and Brandon E. Dobyns. The government is represented by Allen Lotz, Department of Homeland Security. Paula J. Haurilesko and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
