Protest alleging solicitation’s’ key personnel requirements were unduly restrictive is denied. The fact that a requirement is burdensome does not mean its objectionable so long as the requirement represents the agency’s needs. Here, the agency had explained why the key personnel requirements were necessary. The protester had not refuted those explanations or identified which particular requirements exceeded the agency’s requirements.
Background
Immigation and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a solicitation seeking design development and data analytics. The Ambit Group, LLC filed an agency protest alleging the solicitiaton was unduly restrictive. Ambit, however, also submitted a proposal in response to the solicitation. ICE found Ambit’s proposal unacceptable.
Ambit then filed a protest with GAO. Ambit argued the requirements for a Senior Data Scientist were unduly restrictive. Ambit contended it was impossible to find a Senior Data Scientist that satisfied the experience requirements. Ambit also challenged the rejection of its proposal.
Legal Analysis
- Key Personnel Requirements Not Unduly Restrictive — The fact that a requirement is impossible for a firm to meet does not mean it’s objectionable so long as the requirement represents the agency’s needs. Here, ICE explained why the Data Scientist requirements were necessary to meet its needs. Ambit had not refuted those explanations or identified which particular requirements exceeded the agency’s requirement. Also, some of Ambit’s objections to the requirements were based on a misreading of the solicitation.
- Ambit Couldn’t Show It Was Prejudiced by the Evaluation — ICE rejected Ambit’s proposal because the resume for the Senior Data Scientist did not demonstrate that the proposed individual possessed the required experience. Ambit objected but it only challenged some of ICE’s reasons for finding the proposed individual unqualified. Even if Ambit could show that the challenged aspects of the evaluation were unreasonable, it would remain ineligible because it hadn’t challenged all aspects of the agency’s conclusion.
Ambit is represented by Terry L. Elling, Kelsey M. Hayes, and Jeremy D. Burkhard of Holland & Knight LLP. The intervenor, Booz Allen, is represented by Gary J. Campbell, G. Matthew Koehl, and Lidiya Kurin of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. The agency is represented by Gabriel E. Kennon and Andrew W. Wagner of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and John Sorrenti participated in the preparation of the decision.
