Protest alleging that awardee improperly failed to notify agency about the unavailability of a proposed key person is denied. Before award, one of the awardee’s proposed key persons stated that they were going to pursue other opportunities. The awardee did not notify the agency about the key person’s intentions until after award. The protester claimed that the awardee should have notified the agency begore award, and that its failure to do so compromised the integrity of the procurement. GAO found that the awardee did not have obligation to notify the agency. The key person’s statement about pursuing other opportunities was not sufficiently definite to unequivocally communicate unavailability. Thus, the awardee did not have actual knowledge that the person would be unavailable.
The Department of the Interior issued an RFQ for cybersecurity services to vendors holding FSS contracts under GSA’s Information Technology schedule. Nineteen vendors submitted quotes. The agency found that MindPoint Group, LLC had the highest rated proposal. But the agency found that another company’s proposal, Centerpoint, Inc., was the best value. Centerpoint had a strong technical rating and a lower price than MindPoint. Following award to Centerpoint, MindPoint protested.
The RFQ required vendors to answer six questions to demonstrate their competency providing cybersecurity services. Question 4 required offerors to demonstrate the ability to perform governance, risk, compliance, and privacy services. The agency found that MindPoint had only addressed three of the four elements associated with privacy services. MindPoint claimed it addressed all four.
GAO, however, found that MindPoint’s response lacked detail regarding the elements of privacy services. In particular, it was not clear whether MindPoint’s experience with privacy training was a small component of a larger training or privacy-specific training. GAO found that the agency reasonably assessed MindPoint’s response to Question 4.
MindPoint also objected to the assessment of its response to Question 6, which required offerors to demonstrate the ability to perform infrastructure management services. The agency found that the MindPoint only had limited knowledge of firewalls. MindPoint contended that one of the resumes in the key personnel section of its proposal demonstrated the required firewall experience. But agencies evaluating one section of a proposal are not required to search for required information in another section of the proposal. GAO had no basis to question the evaluation of MindPoint’s response to Question 6.
Next, MindPoint argued that Centerpoint had failed to notify the agency of material changes to its proposed staffing. In its quote, Centerpoint proposed a certain Cybersecurity Architect. Before the agency made award, the proposed Architect told Centerpoint that the wait for the contract award was taking a toll on his family and that he was going to pursue other offers. Centerpoint did not notify the agency that the proposed Architect would not be available. In fact, Centerpoint only notified the agency of the Architect’s unavailability after it had received the award. Ultimately, the proposed Cybersecurity Architect agreed to work for Centerpoint. But MindPoint contended that Centrepoint’s failure to inform the agency of the Architect’s unavailability before award compromised the integrity of the procurement.
GAO reasoned that this issue presented a close call, but it declined to conclude that Centerpoint had actual knowledge that the key person was unavailable prior to award. The key person’s statement about pursuing other opportunities was not sufficiently definite to communicate unequivocally that they would be unavailable. A reason to question a key person’s availability is not the equivalent of having actual knowledge that the key person will be unavailable. Without more, GAO was unwilling to find that Centerpoint had an obligation to inform the agency of the proposed key person’s unavailability.
MindPoint also contended that the agency was required to conduct a price realism evaluation but failed to do so. GAO noted that the RFQ merely provided that the agency reserved the right to conduct a realism analysis. When an agency reserves the right to conduct a realism analysis, the decision to conduct such an analysis is within the agency’s discretion. Thus, the agency was not required to conduct a price realism analysis. What’s more, even if the agency had elected to perform a price realism analysis, GAO would not have sustained the protest. Centerpoint’s price was realistic; its technical approach was consistent with its labor categories and labor mix.
MindPoint is represented by Attison L. Barnes, Tracye W. Howard, Gary S. Ward, and Sarah Hansen of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, Centerpoint, is represented by Edward J. Tolchin of Offit Kurman Attorneys at Law. The agency is represented by Robert D. Banfield of the Department of the Interior. GAO attorneys Lois Hanshaw and Evan C. Williams participated in the preparation of the decision.
