Protester Claimed the Awardee’s Proposed Program Manager Wore Too Many Hats. GAO Wasn’t Bothered

The protester claimed the awardee misrepresented the availability of its proposed program manager or engaged in a bait-and-switch. The proposed program manager allegedly could not serve full-time because he held three other positions. GAO noted that the issue of proposed personnel is a matter of contract administration.

Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc., GAO B-423290; B-423290.2

• Protest – The protester objected to the issuance of a task order for administrative support services for the Office of Secure Transportation (OST). It challenged various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the vendors’ quotations.
• Program Manager Availability – The protester contended that the awardee either misrepresented the availability of its proposed program manager or engaged in a “bait and switch.” It explained that the awardee’s proposed program manager could not serve full-time because he held three other positions within the company. GAO noted that the issue of whether proposed personnel will perform was a matter of contract administration that GAO does not review. Thus, the Office concluded the protester failed to establish the awardee engaged in an impermissible bait and switch.
• Failure to Propose Alternate Program Manager – The protester also asserted that the awardee failed to propose an alternate program manager. GAO found the RFQ unambiguous. Neither the RFQ’s submission instructions nor the evaluation criteria referenced an “alternate program manager.” The PWS only established a post-award requirement to identify an alternate program manager during performance.
• Noncompliant CTA – The protester also contended that the awardee was ineligible for award because it did not hold a programmatic services (TEPS III) blanket purchase agreement (BPA). GAO rejected this claim as it was contradicted by the TEPS III BPA ordering guide and the BPA.

Craig A. Holman and Thomas A. Pettit of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP for the protester represented the protester. Thomas David and Lewis Rhodes of Reston Law Group, LLP represented the intervenor. Matthew VanWormer and William Mayers of the Department of Energy represented the agency. Michelle Litteken and Glenn G. Wolcott of GAO, participated in the decision.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.