The agency assessed a weakness to the protester for its lack of a “reach back” or “bench” to recruit staff. The protester alleged the solicitation did not use the words “reach back” or “bench,” so the agency must have applied unstated criteria. GAO rejected the argument, finding the solicitation had stated that retention and recruitment of staff was important. Thus, having a “reach back:” or “bench” for recruitment was encompassed by the terms of the solicitation.
Immersion Consulting, LLC, GAO B-420638. B-420638.2
Background
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a solicitaton seeking information technology and program administration. The criteria under the soliciation’s management and staffing factor stated that offerors would be evaluated to assess the degree to which they could meet “dynamic staffing needs.”
DHS received proposals from Immersion Consulting, LLC and Evoke Research and Consulting LLC. DHS assessed Immersion’s proposal a weakness under the management factor because it had not provided “any type of reach back or bench” for staff. DHS was concerned that Immersion would have problems recruiting qualified staff. DHS awarded the contract to Evoke. Immersion protested.
Analysis
Clear Evaluation Error
Immersion alleged DHS made a clear evaluation when it attributed the retention rate of Immersion’s subcontractor to Immersion. GAO, however, found that the agency had reasonably attributed the rate to Immersion because it was the only rate provided in the proposal. If Immersion wanted the agency to consider its own retention rate, then it should have submitted that rate.
Unstated Criteria
Immersion contended the agency applied unstated criteria when it penalized the company for the lack of reach back or a bench. Immersion reasoned that the solicitation did not contain the words “reach back” or “bench.”
But the solicitation had clearly stated that the agency was concerned about employee attrition and retention and that offerors needed to propose for dynamic staffing needs. The need for a staff “reach back” or a “bench” was thus directly relevant to the contract requirements. The agency reasonably determined that having a “reach back” or “bench” for staff was encompassed by the solicitation’s staffing criteria.
Low Retention Rate
Immersion complained that DHS failed to justify why it found Immersion to have a low retention rate. In fact, Immersion, contended, its retention rate was better than the industry average.
The agency, however, had found that Immersion’s rate was low when compared to the other offerors. What’s more, Immersion had not elaborated on its claim that it had a high retention rate; it simply made a conclusory statement without any evidence.
Immersion is represented by Alexander B. Ginsberg, Meghan D. Doherty, and Togrhrul Shulurlu of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The intervenor, Evoke, is represented by Stephanie D. Wilson and Aleksey R. House of Berenzwieg Leonard LLP. The agency is represented by Peter G. Hartman and Joseph Jankunis of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
