The solicitation required offerors to demonstrate subject matter expertise on certain agency policies. The agency assessed the protester a weakness for its subject matter expertise, because in attempting to demonstrate its expertise, the protester had cited rescinded policy statements. The protester argued that the information in those rescinded statements was still relevant. GAO didn’t buy it. By referring to outdated, rescinded documents, the protester had contradicted its claims of subject matter expertise.
Beshenich Muir & Associates, LLC, GAO B-421178
Background
The U.S. Space Force issued a solicitation to small business holders of GSA’s One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services governmentwide acquisition contract. The solicitation sought to award a task order for advisory and assistance services. Two offerors, Beshenich Muir & Associates (BMA) and Delta Solutions, submitted proposals. The agency found BMA’s proposal technically unacceptable. Following award to Delta, BMA protested.
Analysis
Unstated Criteria
BMA argued that the agency had applied unstated criteria in assessing weaknesses to its proposal. GAO rejected the argument, finding that the agency had simply accounted for matters that were logically encompassed in the stated criteria.
For example, BMA complained about a weakness it received for team lead allocation because team lead allocation was not a stated criteria. But GAO reasoned that the solicitation stated the agency would evaluate an offeror’s ability to provide knowledge, skill and experience to accomplish PWS tasks. Task allocation and the number of team leads directly affect the knowledge, skill, and experience that may be brought to bear on a task.
Presentation of Team Leads
BMA complained that Space Force had misinterpreted the number of team leads the company proposed. Space Force assessed a weakness to BMA for proposing only three team leads. BMA claimed it proposed five.
But GAO found it was not readily apparent from BMA’s proposal that it had proposed five team leads. In fact, BMA’s proposal had included an organizational chart that only included three boxes for team leads covering PWS tasks. Space Force had reasonably concluded from this presentation of information that BMA had only proposed three team leads.
Subject Matter Expertise
The solicitation required offerors to demonstrate subject matter expertise to interface and perform duties to support the Joint Integration and Operation Capability Development Service policy. Space Force assessed BMA a weakness for its subject matter expertise because as evidence of its subject matter expertise, BMA had cited rescinded policy statements. BMA argued that while those documents had been rescinded, the underlying information in those documents still remained relevant.
GAO saw no reason to question the agency’s judgment. The fact that BMA cited rescinded policy statement contradicted the company’s claims of subject matter expertise. Indeed, it was directly counter to the requirement to demonstrate adequate knowledge and expertise. The agency was right to be concerned about this reliance on and reference to outdated information.
BMA is represented by Jon D. Levin, W. Brad English, Emily J. Chancey, Joshua Duvall, and Nicolas Greer of Maynard Cooper & Gale PC . The intervenor, Delta Solutions, is represented by William B. Phillips and John Prairie of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Erika Whelan Retta and James B. Leighton of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Emily R. O’Hara and Peter H. Tran participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
