The protester claimed its proposed security training instructors (STIs) were not key personnel. Therefore, according to the solicitation, the protester did not need to provide resumes for the proposed STIs. The agency responded that the plain language of the solicitation indicated STIs were key personnel. GAO found this discrepancy was a latent ambiguity. However, GAO did not sustain because the protester was not competitively prejudiced.
KR Contracting, Inc., GAO B-422346.2
- Protest – The agency issued a task order for comprehensive security screening services at Orlando Sanford International Airport. The protester averred that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal under the program management and training approach factor (PMTA) and the past performance factor.
- PMTA Factor – The protester contested the assigned significant weakness for failure to provide resumes for its proposed security training instructors (STIs). It argued that the TORFP only required resumes for key personnel. The agency responded that STIs were key personnel positions and required resumes. GAO concluded the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity regarding whether STIs were key personnel positions or not. The plain language could indicate STIs were key personnel, but when read in conjunction with the IDIQ, it could be interpreted that they were not. Thus, the solicitation was latently ambiguous.
- Competitive Prejudice: Nevertheless, GAO did not sustain the protest because it found that the ambiguity did not competitively prejudice the protester. This is because the agency also assigned two other weaknesses to the PMTA factor. Thus, even removing the significant weakness would not impact the overall rating in a meaningful manner.
- Past Performance – The protester argued the agency failed to consider its contract summaries as part of its past performance evaluation. GAO ruled that the agency evaluated the past performance in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. Nothing in the solicitation stated that the agency would base its evaluation on the contract summaries. The protest was denied.
- Emphasis: The protester also argued that the agency overemphasized negative past performance information and underemphasized the positive. Because no evidence was provided, GAO dismissed the argument.
The protester was represented by Adam K. Lasky, Erica L. Bakies, Bret C. Marfut, and Ryan Gilchrist of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The intervenor was represented by Katherine B. Burrows, Kelly A. Kirchgasser, Jonathan T. Williams, Patrick T. Rothwell, and Tracey L. Pruiett of Piliero Mazza, PLLC. The agency was represented by Michael Kiffney and Christopher J. Curry of DHS. Christine Milne and Tania Calhoun of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
