Protest objecting to agency’s decision to not exclude an offeror is denied. The protester alleged that another offeror had failed to update the agency on the changed employment status of key personnel and thus that offeror should have been excluded. GAO found that agency’s decision to not exclude was reasonable. The agency had investigated as part of a corrective action and found the offeror had neglected updated the agency on changes in employment status, but the proposed key personnel were still available. GAO further reasoned that while it had recommended exclusion in other cases involving misrepresentations relating to key personnel, the circumstances of this case did not warrant exclusion.
Background
Following a series of previous awards, protests, and corrective actions, the State Department issued a task order to Northrop Grumman for cybersecurity support services. An unsuccessful offeror, CSRA, LLC, protested. CSRA alleged that three of Northrop Grumman’s proposed key personnel had changed employment after submission of final proposals, and Northrop Grumman had failed to notify the agency of the changes. The State Department took corrective action to investigate. GAO dismissed the protest as academic.
The State Department determined that Northrop Grumman had neglected to update the agency on the employment status of key personnel. Nevertheless, State determined that the proposed personnel were still available, and that the agency would not exclude Northrop Grumman from the competition.
CSRA filed another protest, challenging the decision to not exclude Northrop Grumman.
Legal Analysis
- Decision Not to Exclude Was Reasonable Exercise of Discretion – Agencies have broad discretion in implementing corrective action, and GAO will not object to any particular corrective action so long as it’s appropriate to remedy the concern that precipitated corrective action. Here, as part of the corrective action, State investigated the availability of the key personnel. Northrop Grumman explained that it had neglected to update the individuals’ resumes, but that they were still available. The corrective action remedied the concern. GAO saw no reason to disturb the agency’s decision.
- Failure to Notify Agency of Employment Changes Doesn’t Necessitate Exclusion – CSRA argued that Northrop Grumman should be excluded because it failed to keep the agency apprised of the precise availability of the key personnel. GAO noted that while in some instances it has excluded offerors for misrepresenting the availability of personnel, in other cases, it has not. This case—where Northrop Grumman conceded the mistake and personnel were still available—was not the type of case that merited exclusion.
CSRA is represented by Noah B. Bleicher, Carla J. Weiss, Moshe B. Broder, Umer M. Chaudhry, and Scott E. Whitman of Jenner & Block, LLP. The internevnor, Northrop Grumman, is represented by Jonathan J. Frankel and Karla J. Letsche of Frankel PLLC. The agency is represented by John W. Cox of the State Department. GAO attorneys Scott H. Riback and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
