The agency assessed a strength to the awardee for proposing service desk coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The protester argued this strength was based on unstated criteria. The RFP had not said anything about round-the-clock coverage. GAO didn’t think the agency applied unstated criteria. The solicitation had required service desk coverage for 14 hours a day. The awardee had simply proposed to go above and beyond the stated requirement. Thus, agency had reasonably assessed a strength for exceeding the requirement.
Gryphon Technologies, L.C., GAO B-420882.2 et al.
Background
The Defense Media Activity issued an RFP seeking support for the agency’s Web Enterprise Business operations center. DMA received two acceptable proposals from Gryphon Technologies and Zolon Tech, Inc. DMA awarded the contract to Zolon. Gryphon protested. DMA took corrective action to reevaluate. Following reevaluation, DMA again selected Zolon. Gryphon filed a second protest.
Analysis
Untimely Arguments
GAO found that two of Gryphon’s arguments were untimely. First, Gryphon argued that DMA had not conducted meaningful discussions. Gryphon raised this argument in its second protest. But GAO reasoned that Gryphon could have raised this argument in the initial protest that prompted the corrective action.
Second, Gryphon alleged DMA botched the responsibility determination. Again, GAO noted that Gryphon knew the basis of this argument when DMA first awarded the contract the Zolon. It should have raised this argument within 10 days of the initial award, not as part of the second protest.
Phase-In Plan
Gryphon contended Zolon’s phase-in plan was unacceptable because it didn’t provide an approach for onboarding key positions. But the RFP did not specifically require offerors to address the onboarding of key personnel. Here, Zolon’s proposal adequately discussed its approach to hiring and training key personnel. What’s more, its approach was bolstered by successful examples of the transition process in practice. GAO saw no reason to question DMA’s evaluation.
Bait-and-Switch
Gryphon argued Zolon had misrepresented the availability of key personnel. As evidence, Gryphon noted that Zolon had posted a job for a program manager after the initial award. But mere evidence of recruitment efforts does not establish that an offeror knowingly or negligently proposed personnel it did not expect to furnish.
Fully Functioning Management Team
Gryphon alleged the RFP required offerors to propose a management team consisting of at least ten key positions. And, Gryphon continued, the personnel had to be employed by the offeror at the time of award. Gryphon maintained that Zolon hadn’t proposed a fully functional ten-person team.
But GAO found that Gryphon was misinterpreting the RFP. The RFP did not specifically require a ten-person team. While the PWS mentioned a ten-person team, DMA had made it clear in Q&A’s that offerors had discretion to propose whatever mix of key personnel they thought could accomplish the requirements. To the extent this was ambiguous, it was a patent ambiguity that Gryphon should have raised in a pre-award protest.
Moreover, GAO noted, it was not clear the RFP required offerors to identify the individuals on their team. Indeed, GAO reasoned, the RFP stated resumes for key individuals were not required. Thus, even if offerors had to identify individuals for key positions, without a resume requirement, it was unclear how the agency would evaluate their experience or qualifications as part of the technical evaluation.
Unstated Criteria
DMA assessed a strength to Zolon for proposing a service desk coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Gryphon argued that DMA assessed this strength based on unstated criteria. The RFP had not contemplated round-the-clock service desk coverage.
But GAO found that DMA had not applied unstated criteria Rather, it had simply proposed an innovative approach to the stated requirement. The RFP had required service desk coverage from 7 am to 9 pm. Zolon had simply proposed to go above and beyond the requirement. The agency had reasonably recognized that this approach to exceeded the requirements and benefitted the agency.
Gryphon is represented by Scott F. Lane, Katherine S. Nucci, and Jayna Marie Rust of Thompson Coburn, LLP. The intervenor, Zolon, is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Nathaniel J. Greeson, and Gabrielle A. Sprio of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The agency is represented by Thomas Tinti of the Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Heather Weiner and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
