Share:
SysCom protested the Air Force’s rejection of its proposal. The agency found SysCom’s technical proposal unacceptable because it didn’t explain how it would maintain uninterrupted service during employee absences due to illness or vacation. GAO denied the protest, finding the agency’s evaluation reasonable since SysCom had admittedly not addressed short-term absences as required by the solicitation.
SysCom Inc., GAO, B-423334
- Background – The Air Force issued a competitive 8(a) set-aside solicitation for support services at multiple locations. The RFP required offerors to describe how they would maintain uninterrupted service during personnel absences due to “sickness, vacations, or other sustained leave.” Eleven offerors submitted proposals. SysCom, ranked second lowest in price, was eliminated after the agency found its technical proposal unacceptable under the staffing plan and mission essential services subfactors. The agency determined SysCom’s proposal only addressed filling vacant positions and disaster scenarios, not short-term absences from illness or vacation.
- Staffing Plan Requirements – SysCom argued its proposal adequately addressed maintaining uninterrupted service by describing plans to fill open positions, identify candidates for unexpected openings, and maintain a continuity of operations plan. The agency countered that these strategies only addressed permanent vacancies and disasters, not temporary absences from illness or vacation. GAO agreed with the agency, noting that SysCom did not dispute its proposal failed to specifically address short-term absences. Since the RFP clearly required offerors to explain how they would handle absences due to sickness and vacations, the agency reasonably found SysCom’s proposal unacceptable.
- Untimely Solicitation Challenge – In its comments, SysCom argued for the first time that the solicitation’s use of “or” meant offerors could address any type of absence rather than all types listed. SysCom claimed if the agency wanted comprehensive coverage, it should have used “and” instead of “or.” GAO found this argument untimely because SysCom knew from its February 11 debriefing that the agency rejected its proposal for failing to address illness and vacation absences. This challenge, raised for the first time in the March 31 comments, represented impermissible piecemeal protest development.
The protester is represented by Douglas P. Hibshman, David O’Neill, and Dana Molinari of Fox Rothschild LLP. The government is represented by Kelsi Pilcher and Erika Whelan Retta of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Mary G. Curcio and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.
Share:
