The awardee had won the contract based in part on the strength of its proposed key personnel. It turned out that one of individuals the awardee proposed had committed to another offeror and had specifically told the awardee that her resume could not be included in the awardee’s proposal. In light of this, GAO found the awardee had made a knowing, material misrepresentation regarding key personnel. GAO recommended the awardee be excluded from the competition.
ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC, GAO B-421008 et al.
Background
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an RFQ to small businesses holding Federal Supply Schedule contracts for information technology services. The RFQ required offerors to submit information detailing the experience and qualification of proposed key personnel.
After reviewing four quotations, HHS selected Arlluk Technology Solutions for award. An unsuccessful vendor, ASRC Federal Data Solutions, filed a protest, arguing that Arlluk had mispresented the availability of its proposed key personnel
Analysis
Arlluk’s Key Personnel
Both ASRC and Arlluk had proposed a Mr. A as technical lead and a Dr. B a technical point of contact. ASRC’s quotation contained letters of commitment from Mr. A and Dr. B, which stated that they were exclusively committed to ASRC and that no other company was authorized to use their resume in their quotations. Arlluk’s quotation did not contain letters of commitment from Mr. A and Dr. B, but the company stated it had obtained contingent commitments from them.
It turned out that 20 days before Arlluk submitted its quotation, Mr. A had accepted a contingent offer from Arlluk. But when Arlluk followed up with Dr. B, the record showed she had informed Arlluk that she was exclusively committed to ASRC and that no other company was authorized to propose her. Despite this, Arlluk proposed Dr. B as a key person.
Misrepresentation
An offeror misrepresents the availability of key personnel when they represent they would rely on personnel they do not have a reasonable basis to expect to furnish. Here, in light of the record of correspondence, GAO determined that Arlluk did not have reasonable basis to expect to furnish Dr. B. She had notified Arlluk that she was committed to ARSC and that other vendors could not submit her resume. Arlluk was aware of this commitment and yet knowingly represented that it would furnish Dr. B.
Reliance and Material Effect
A misrepresentation of key personnel is an impermissible bait and switch if the agency relied on the representation and it had a material effect on the evaluation results. Here, HHS had given Arlluk a strength for Dr. B and had found that this additional strength made Arlluk’s quotation superior to ASRC’s. GAO had no problem concluding that HHS had relied on Arlluk’s misrepresentation and that it impacted the evaluation.
Exclusion of Arlluk
When an offeror makes a misrepresentation that has a material effect on the competition, the integrity of the procurement system demands no less a remedy than exclusion. In this case, Arlluk’s misrepresentation was knowing and intentional. GAO recommended that HHS exclude Arlluk from the competition.
ASRC is represented by Damien C. Specht, James A. Tucker, and Markus G. Speidel of Morrison & Foerster LLP. The intervenor, Arlluk Technology Solutions is represented by Devon E. Hewitt of Potomac Law Group. The agency is represented by Jon J. Gottschalk and Kevin Misener of the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Nathaniel S. Canfield and Evan D. Wesser participated in the preparation of the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
