The protester said the agency didn’t consider the impact of a corporate transaction involving the awardee’s affiliate. GAO found the entity involved in the transaction was far-removed from the awardee. The transaction would have negligible impact.
B&B Medical Services, Inc., GAO B-41471.7 et al.
- Changed Requirements – The protester contended the RFP didn’t reflect the agency’s needs. Specifically, estimates in the source selection decision difference from estimates in the solicitation. GAO wasn’t bothered. There’s no requirement that estimates be correct. Here, the agency reasonably derived estimates in the solicitation and the award decision. While the estimates differed, the protester had not shown how it was prejudiced by the difference—it had not explained how its proposal would’ve differed if the solicitation had different estimates.
- Responsibility Determination – Shortly before award, a company three levels up the corporate chain from the awardee was acquired. The protester contended the agency failed to consider this acquisition when assessing the awardee’s responsibility. GAO noted the agency was aware of the transaction, reviewed public information, and requested additional information from the awardee. The protester had not identified additional information the agency should’ve considered. Its arguments amounted to disagreement with the agency.
- Experience Evaluation – The protester asserted the agency failed to consider the acquisition when evaluating experience. But the acquired entity had not performed any of the contracts the awardee submitted as experience references. Likewise, there was no evidence the acquired entity would perform the current contract. The agency reasonably concluded the acquisition would not impact the awardee’s experience.
- Misrepresentation – The protester contended the awardee had misrepresented the availability of key personnel. GAO noted the solicitation did not require offerors to identify key personnel. While the awardee submitted a personnel list, nothing in the proposal indicated the awardee planned to rely on those personnel.
The protester is represented by William M. Jack and Ken M. Kanzawa of Kelley Drye & Warren as well as Richard L. Moorhouse of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The awardee is represented by John E. McCarthy, Jr. and Issac D. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Daniel J. McFeely of the Department of Veterans Affairs. GAO attorneys Uri R. Yoo and Alexander O. Levine participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
