Protest challenging the rejection of a proposal as technically unacceptable is denied. The agency rejected the protester’s proposal for a failure to describe processes used to help employees maintain continuity books. The protester argued that continuity books were not a material solicitation requirement, and even if they were, its proposal had sufficiently addressed continuity. GAO found that that solicitation clearly contemplated a continuity book requirement. What’s more, the protester had failed to detail its processes for the continuity book requirement.
The U.S. Special Operations Command issued a solicitation seeking to award a task order for information technology services. Soft Tech Consulting, Inc. submitted a proposal. The agency assigned the proposal a deficiency for failing to “describe the processes, policies, and tools provided to employees to facilitate maintenance of continuity books.” (A continuity book is a document that an employee prepares to memorialize information about their position.) As a result of the deficiency, the agency found Soft Tech’s proposal unacceptable. Soft Tech protested.
Soft Tech argued the deficiency relating to continuity books was unreasonable because continuity books were neither material nor even a requirement. Soft Tech reasoned that while the solicitation’s instructions mentioned continuity books, the books were not referenced in either the evaluation criteria or the statement of work.
GAO rejected this argument, reasoning that the absence of the term “continuity books” did not prevent the agency from considering the books to be a material solicitation requirements. The solicitation instructed offerors to describe their processes for maintaining continuity books. The evaluation criteria then stated that the agency would evaluate the degrees to which those processes support stability during transition. The reference to continuity books in the instructions therefore were reasonably subsumed within the evaluation criteria.
Still, Soft Tech argued, even if the continuity books were a material requirement, its proposal complied with criterion by presenting a comprehensive transition that described the processes that would support continuity.
GAO was unpersuaded, finding that Soft Tech’s proposal only stated briefly that continuity books would be maintained without describing how they would be maintained. Soft Tech had done little more than restate the solicitation’s requirements.
Soft Tech is represented by Richard B. Oliver and Matthew Carter of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Patricia S. Wiegman-Lenz, Major Alissa J. Schrider, Alexis J. Bernstein, and Matthew W. Haynes of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
