Protest challenging agency’s determination that proposal was unacceptable is denied. The protester alleged that the agency erred in assigning its proposal a deficiency for not submitting a resume and letter of commitment for a proposed employee. The protester contended it did not need to submit a resume and letter because the proposed individual was an incumbent employee. GAO, however, found that the individual proposed had never been hired by the protester and never worked on the incumbent contract. The agency reasonably assessed the deficiency. The protester also alleged that the agency should have found the awardee’s proposal unacceptable. But the alleged flaws in the awardee’s proposal were minor clerical errors, not deficiencies.
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) posted a solicitation seeking forensic and scientific laboratory and technical support services. Six offerors submitted proposals. ATF, however, found only one proposal, from MartinFederal Consulting, acceptable. The other five offerors all failed to provide required information. One of the unsuccessful offerors, NLT Management Services, protested
NLT challenged a deficiency it received for failing to provide a resume and letter of commitment from its proposed metrology technician. The solicitation provided that offerors had to provide a resume and a letter of commitment for non-incumbent personnel. NLT claimed its proposed metrology technician was an incumbent employee and thus a resume and letter of commitment were not required.
But GAO noted that NLT’s proposal indicated that the hire date for this metrology technician had been set at some time after the proposal submission date. What’s more, it turned out that the individual NLT proposed for the metrology technician never actually accepted the company’s offer of employment; in fact, he went to work for another company. Thus, it was not possible for proposed technician to be an incumbent employee because he never worked for NLT and never worked on the incumbent contract. The deficiency assigned to NLT was reasonable.
Indeed, GAO continued, when a solicitation requires resumes for specific personnel, the proposed person forms a material requirement of the solicitation. Offerors are thus obligated to advise agencies of changes in proposed staffing after the submission of their proposal. If the proposed person withdraws, the agency may find the proposal technically unacceptable or hold discussions and allow for proposal revisions. Here, NLT conceded that its metrology technical would not be available. Also, ATF had made award without discussions. This meant that NLT’s proposal was unacceptable as submitted, which provided an alternative basis to find NLT ineligible for award.
NLT next argued that MartinFederal’s proposed metrology technician II failed to meet the RFP’s requirement for training in calibration or metrology. GAO, however, found the evaluation of MartinFederal’s technician reasonable. MartinFederal’s candidate had a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, which included specific scientific coursework and lab work involving instrument analysis.
Additionally, NLT contended that MartinFederal should have been assessed a deficiency rather than a mere weakness for failing to explain one of its subcontractor’s high employee turnover rates. But GAO found that the solicitation only required offerors to identify employee turner rates. The solicitation allowed offerors to explain the turnover rates, but, contrary to NLT’s argument, did not require explanations.
NLT also identified several discrepancies in MartinFederal’s proposal that should have made the proposal unacceptable. GAO, however, found these discrepancies were minor clerical errors that ATF could have reasonably waived. For instance, NLT complained that MartinFederal had improperly referred to a “metrology technician” rather than specifically identifying the position as “metrology technician II.” GAO found this was a trivial error, and the MartinFederal’s proposal contained other sufficient information demonstrating that it was proposing to fill the metrology II position.
Finally, NLT contended that ATF engaged in a disparate evaluation when it rejected NLT’s proposal for failing to provide required information but overlooked MartinFederal’s alleged errors. GAO rejected this argument, finding that the errors in NLT’s and MartinFederal’s proposals were not comparable. NLT failed to meet a solicitation requirement. MartinFederal’s proposal contained only minor clerical errors that ATF could have waived or resolved through clarifications.
NLT is represented by Bryant S. Banes and Sean D. Forbes of Neel, Hooper & Banes, P.C. The intervenor, MartinFederal, is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Sarah S. Osborne, Patrick R. Quigley, Nathanial J. Greeson, and Lisa A. Markman of Bradly Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The agency is represented by Angela R. Williams of the Department of Justice. GAO attorneys Evan D. Wesser and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.
