The protester argued the awardee should’ve received a weakness for not having staff on hand to meet requirements. As evidence, the protester noted the awardee had sent a questionnaire to incumbent employees. GAO didn’t see this as problem. There’s nothing inherently improper about an awardee contacting incumbent employees. Moreover, the fact the awardee contacted employees is not conclusive evidence the awardee didn’t have staff on hand.
Antium, LLC, GAO B-421291, B-421291.2
Background
The Army issued a solicitation to holders of GSA’s STARS III governmentwide acquisition contract. The solicitation contemplated a task order for information technology services. Fourteen offerors, including Antium, LLC and New Generation Solutions, LLC (NGS), submitted proposals. The Army awarded the contract to NGS. Antium protested.
Analysis
Additional Strengths for Antium
Antium alleged the Army should have assessed its proposal four additional strengths. GAO didn’t agree. The Army reasonably determined these four aspects of Antium’s proposal did not exceed the solicitation’s requirements. Antium’s arguments amounted to disagreement with the Army’s evaluation conclusions.
Additional Weaknesses for NGS
Antium also claimed the Army should have assessed additional weaknesses to NGS’s proposal. First, Antium contended NGS should’ve received a weakness for not having enough staff on hand to meet requirements. As evidence of this weakness, Antium noted NGS had sent a questionnaire to employees of the incumbent contractor requesting employment details.
GAO noted there’s nothing inherently inadequate about an offeror’s strategy to hire incumbent staff. Also, NGS’s post-award questionnaire had no bearing on the contents of the company’s proposal. To the extent that NGS sent the questionnaire to execute the strategy outlined in its proposal, there is nothing wrong with an awardee trying to recruit incumbent staff.
Antium contended NGS should have received a weakness under the technical factor for not having experience with the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. But experience with the Walter Reed Institute was not a requirement under the technical factor.
Weaknesses Assessed to Antium
Antium objected to a weakness it received under the experience factor. The Army found Antium lacked experience with stand-alone devices—that is, hardware and software that’s not connected to a network. GAO found this protest ground was untimely. The Army had advised Antium of this weakness during a debriefing. But Antium only raised the issue in its comments on the agency report, not in its initial protest.
Antium is represented by Kevin P. Mullen, Sandeep N. Nandivada, and Victoria Dalcourt Angle of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The intervenor, New Generation, is represented by W. Brad English, Jon D. Levin, Emily J. Chancey, Mary Ann Hanke, and Nicholas P. Greer of Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC. The agency is represented by Seth Ritzman, Andrew J. Smith, Natalie W. McKiernan, and Dmitrius R. McGruder of the Army. GAO attorneys Christine Milne and Tania Calhoun participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
