Protest arguing that the agency evaluated more proposals than necessary under an LPTA procurement is denied, where the evaluation of an extra proposal did not prejudice the protester and where there is no rule preventing an agency from reevaluating proposals; and protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposed staffing is denied, where the solicitation did not require offerors to state whether key personnel had passed background investigations, and where there was no evidence the awardee engaged in a bait-and-switch of personnel.
Systems Plus Inc. challenged the award of a Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection task order for administrative support services to Advanced Concepts and Technologies Inc. Systems Plus argued that the agency improperly evaluated more proposals than the solicitation contemplated; that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis; that the agency did not consider whether the awardee’s proposed key personnel had completed background investigations when evaluating the awardee’s transition plan; and that the awardee engaged in a bait and switch regarding proposed personnel.
Systems Plus first argued that the agency improperly evaluated more proposals than it should have. The solicitation stated that award would be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. The agency evaluated the lowest-priced proposal and found it to be technically unacceptable. The agency next evaluated ACT’s proposal and found it technically acceptable. The agency also evaluated Systems Plus’ proposal and also found it to be technically acceptable. Systems Plus speculated that the agency evaluated its proposal only because it initially found ACT’s proposal technically unacceptable.
The agency conceded that its evaluated more proposals than necessary but argued this was a minor deviation that did not prejudice Systems Plus. GAO found no evidence to support Systems Plus’ allegation. Further, GAO held that the evaluation of the other two proposals could not have prejudiced Systems Plus, because ACT’s proposal was lower-priced. And because GAO found no basis to sustain any of System’s Plus’ technical challenges, there was no way Systems Plus’ proposal could have been elevated over ACT’s. GAO also held that there is nothing precluding an agency from re-evaluating a proposal before making an award decision; otherwise, GAO noted, an agency would not even be permitted to check its own work.
Systems Plus also argued that the agency failed to conduct a price realism analysis. However, the solicitation did not address price realism and described only the price reasonableness evaluation that the agency planned to conduct. GAO found no basis to sustain Systems Plus’ protest, because no price realism analysis was required.
System Plus next alleged that the agency improperly evaluated ACT’s transition plan, because it did not consider whether ACT’s proposed key personnel had completed background investigations. The agency argued that the solicitation did not require offerors to discuss whether key personnel had completed background investigations as part of their transition plans. GAO agreed with the agency, finding that the solicitation did not include such a requirement. Further, the statement of work anticipated that information on background investigations would be provided after issuance of the task order.
Finally, Systems Plus argued that ACT engaged in a bait and switch by proposing personnel it had no intention of hiring. Systems Plus asserted that ACT proposed personnel that it knew would not pass background investigations. The protester supported this argument by alleging that ACT attempted to recruit some of its own incumbent personnel. GAO found that whether personnel could pass background checks was a matter of contract administration outside of GAO’s purview. Further, Systems Plus failed to identify any of its personnel that ACT supposedly solicited, and ACT did not propose any of the incumbent personnel. GAO determined that there was no basis to conclude that ACT proposed personnel it had no intention of hiring.
Systems Plus Inc. is represented by Richard B. Oliver and J. Matthew Carter of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. Advanced Concepts and Technologies Inc. is represented by Erin L. Felix and Gregory S. Jacobs of Polsinelli PC. The government is represented by Andrew Lieberman and Matthew Faust of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Jonathan L. Kang and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision
