Following a sustained protest, the agency took corrective action to reevaluate proposals. As part of the reevaluation, the agency allowed offerors to revise any part of the proposal. The protester, who had been the initial awardee, argued the agency should’ve limited the corrective action because its price had been disclosed during debriefing. GAO denied the protest, finding that in light of updates to a collective bargaining agreement and a new wage determination, unlimited proposal revisions were reasonable.
AB International Services, LLC, GAO B-419727.2
Background
The Air Force awarded a contract for metrology and technical writing services to AB International Services (ABIS). An unsuccessful offeror protested, and GAO sustained finding that the Air Force had failed to compare the incumbent’s professional compensation to offerors’ proposed professional compensation as required by the FAR. In light of the protest, the Air Force said it would take corrective action to reevaluate professional compensation.
As part of this reevaluation, however, the Air Force asked offerors for proposal revisions, allowing offerors to revise any aspect of their proposals.
ABIS filed a protest challenging the scope of the corrective action. ABIS argued that the agency had disclosed the company's pricing and staffing information during the previous debriefing. Given that offerors now had this information, ABIS reasoned that the Air Force should have limited proposal revisions.
Analysis
Agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action when such action is necessary to ensure fair and impartial competition. Here, GAO noted, 18 months had passed since the initial proposals had been submitted. During that time, the Department of Labor had issued a new wage determination and the agency had updated a collective bargaining agreement with wage rates and labor classification. In light of these changes, it was appropriate to allow unlimited proposal revisions because these changes to salaries and benefits could impact offerors’ staffing approaches. GAO saw no reason to question the Air Force’s broad discretion.
ABIS is represented by John J. O’Brien and David Cohen of Cordatis LLP. The agency is represented by Colonel Frank Yoon and Isabelle P. Cutting of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Christopher Alwood and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.