The protester contended the awardee’s staffing plan was unrealistic because it had fewer FTEs than the government’s estimates. GAO, however, found this was not a problem. It is not the size of a staffing plan that matters, but rather how you use it. Here, the agency reasonably found that while the awardee proposed fewer FTEs for the base year, the individuals proposed were efficiently distributed in relation to the tasks to be performed.
HeiTech-PAE, LLC, GAO B-420049.9, B-420049.10
Background
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) posted an RFP for records operation services. Following an initial evaluation of proposals, USCIS awarded the contract to Brillient Corporation. An unsuccessful offeror, HeiTech-PAE, LLC, protested. USCIS took corrective action to reevaluate.
After reevelauton, USCIS again awarded the contract to Brillient, finding its highly-rated, low-price proposal represented the best value. HeiTech filed a second protest.
Analysis
Staffing Approach
Brillient’s proposed staffing level for the base year of the contract was 6 percent lower than the government’s staffing plan. HeiTech argued that Brillient’s staffing plan was unrealistic and inadequate to perform the contract.
But GAO found that USCIS was all aware of Brillient’s staffing levels, and that Brillient had sufficient explanations for its deviation from the government’s estimates. GAO noted that an offeror’s staffing plan is not merely a function of size but how that staff it used. Here, the record showed that USCIS reviewed not only the number of FTEs proposed but how those individuals would be used in relation to the tasks to be performed. While HeiTech may have disagreed with the agency’s conclusions, GAO found the staffing evaluation reasonable.
Reconciliation of Evaluations
During the initial evaluation, USCIS identified beneficial features of HeiTehc’s management approach. After reevaluation, however, USCIS did not identify those same features as beneficial. HeiTech complained that the reevaluation was unreasonable because USCIS failed to reconcile its results with the initial evaluation.
GAO didn’t find this persuasive. The mere fact that an evaluation after corrective action differs from the original evaluation does not mean the reevaluation was unreasonable. After all, it’s implicit that a reevaluation will result in differing findings and conclusions. Here, the differences between the two evaluations were not even that stark. USCIS was not required to reconcile the evaluations.
Unstated Criteria
HeiTech thought its transition plan should’ve been assessed as a strength. USCIS had criticized the plan for not including details on how the company planned to “message transition” to employees. HeiTech argued this criticism was unstated criteria because the the RFP did not require offerors to “message transition.”
GAO, however, noted that an agency may properly consider matters that are not explicitly mentioned in the RFP but are logically encompassed by the evaluation criteria. Here, USCIS evaluated transition plans. The success of a transition plan depends in part on how the plan is communicated. The agency could reasonably evaluate messaging on transition.
Prejudice
HeiTech further objected to five weaknesses assessed to its management approach. To the extent these weaknesses had been assessed in error, GAO did not think HeiTech had been prejudiced. Even if HeiTech had not received the weaknesses, its rating under the management would have been equal to Brillient’s. But Brillient still had higher ratings under the technical and past performance factors.
HeiTech-PAE is represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Jacqueline K. Unger, and Eirc A. Valle of PilieroMazza PLLC. The intervenor, Brilliant, is represented by Terry L. Elling,Hillary J. Freund, and Amy L. Fuentes of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency is represented by Beth B. Sturgess of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Louis A. Chiarella and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
