The protester argued the awardee should have been assigned a weakness rather than a strength for its staffing plan. Particularly, the protester asserted the awardee’s plan relied on rehiring incumbent staff while not proposing a plan to obtain and retain such personnel. GAO disagreed. The awardee adequately explained that it maintained a pool of candidates to fill positions that should incumbents not.
PingWind, inc., GAO B-423141
- Protest – The agency issued a task order for cybersecurity services. The protester challenged the awardee’s staffing plan and the price analysis. In particular, the protester argued the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s management factor was unreasonable, and that the awardee’s price proposal was inconsistent with its staffing proposal.
- Staffing Plan – The protester claimed the agency should have assigned a weakness instead of a strength to the awardee’s staffing plan because the plan was unrealistic. Allegedly, the awardee’s plan relied on the awardee’s ability to recruit and retain incumbent personnel. The protester pointed out that the awardee failed to offer any explanation how it intended to obtain such incumbents. GAO found that the awardee’s staffing plan did not exclusively rely on using the incumbent workforce. Furthermore, the awardee explained it maintained a large enough pool of candidates to fill positions if they were not able to capture enough incumbents.
- Proposed Labor Rates: The protester also claimed the agency should have considered the awardee’s inability to hire incumbent staff given the difference between the awardee’s proposed labor rates and the incumbent labor rates. GAO concluded that the solicitation did not contemplate such an evaluation.
- Price Evaluation – The protester averred the staffing proposal relied on incumbent employees, but its price proposal indicated all the incumbent employees would have to accept a pay cut. GAO noted that the solicitation would be evaluated for reasonableness and not price realism. To this end, the agency’s comparison of the proposed prices to each other and the IGCE was sufficient. Further, as explained above, the awardee’s proposal was not reliant on the rehiring of the incumbent employees.
The protester was represented by David B. Dixon, John E. Jensen, Toghrul M. Shukurlu, and Alexis P. Landrum of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The intervenor was represented by Christian B. Nagel, Jeremy D. Burkhart, Sean Belanger, and Bailey C. McHale of Holland & Knight LLP. The agency was represented by Kelly Sledgister-Stehle and Debra J. Talley of the Army. Janis R. Millete and John Sorrenti of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
