The protester alleged the agency unreasonably found it ineligible due to a temporary lapse in its System for Award Management (SAM) registration. GAO sustained because the solicitation did not notify offerors that SAM registration needed to be active at proposal submission.
Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc., GAO B-422389.2
- Protest – The protester argued the exclusion of its proposal contradicted the fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) and relevant FAR requirements. Otherwise, the protester maintained its proposal would have been selected for award had the agency considered it eligible.
- Protester claimed the FOPR did not state that a proposal would be rejected if an offeror’s SAM registration lapsed. Thus, the SAM registration was unstated criteria.
- Pursuant FAR section 4.1103, the protester claimed active SAM registration does not need to be verified when the IDIQ contract included FAR clause 52.204-13 (clause requiring contractors to maintain registration in SAM during performance and through final payment).
- Sustained – GAO recognized that neither the FOPR nor the protester’s IDIQ contract contained FAR provision 52.204-7 (provision requiring an offeror to be registered in SAM when submitting offer, until time of award, during performance and through final payment). Although the FOPR stated all terms and conditions of its IDIQ remain in full effect, the court found nothing had put the protester on notice that it would be ineligible for award if its SAM registration lapsed when it submitted its proposal. Thus, GAO ruled the agency did not have basis to find protester’s proposal ineligible and sustained the protest.
The protester was represented by Hal J. Perloff, Steven A. Neeley, Melissa M. Kirby, and Eric J. Singley of Husch Blackwell LLP. The intervenor was represented by Edward J. Tolchi of Offit Kurman Attorneys-at-Law. The agency was represented by Diane Foose and Joshua K. Adams of DHS. Charmaine A Stevenson, Maia Stephenson, and John Sorrenti of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
