The protester argued that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical quotations for the first call order and improperly awarded the second call order. For the first call order, the GAO found that the protester’s quotation lacked specificity. For the second call order, GAO found the protester failed to notify the agency that one of its proposed key personnel resigned before award, rendering the protester’s quotation unacceptable. Because an unacceptable quotation cannot receive an award, the protester lacked standing as an interested party to challenge the second call order.
Sancorp Consulting, LLC, GAO B-422985.4; B-422985.5
- Background – The Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service issued a request for quotations seeking technical, administrative, and professional support services for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security. The solicitation anticipated multiple blanket purchase agreements with two initial call orders awarded concurrently. After a reevaluation following earlier protests, the agency awarded Call Order 1 to Premier Enterprise Solutions and Call Order 2 to Arlo Solutions. Sancorp protested both awards, challenging the technical evaluations and best-value tradeoff decisions.
- Technical Evaluation of Call Order 1 – The protester challenged a weakness assessed in its quotation for failing to clearly address how it would engage with experts outside the intelligence community for research and business analysis tasks. The protester argued its quotation adequately addressed cross-collaboration and deserved an “outstanding” rather than “good” rating. GAO found the agency reasonably determined the protester’s quotation lacked specific methods for accomplishing this critical task, merely restating experience rather than providing an approach.
- Key Personnel for Call Order 2 – The protester proposed an employee (“X”) for a key staff officer position. X resigned from the protester’s employment in February 2025, before the award but after the quotation submission. The protester argued it lacked actual knowledge of X’s unavailability because X left “amicably” and never withdrew his commitment letter. GAO rejected this argument, finding the protester had direct knowledge through X’s resignation letter. Unlike cases where proposed personnel worked for subcontractors or reaffirmed availability during protest proceedings, here, the protester’s own employee resigned without any evidence of continued availability.
- Interested Party Status – Because the protester failed to notify the agency of the unavailability of its key personnel, its quotation became technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. An unacceptable quotation cannot form the basis for award, eliminating any reasonable possibility the protester would receive the contract if its protest succeeded. Without standing as an interested party, the protester could not challenge other evaluation aspects or the best-value tradeoff for Call Order 2. GAO dismissed all protest grounds related to the second call order.
The protester is represented by Douglas P. Hibshman, Keeley A. McCarty, and Jane Jung Hyoun Han of Fox Rothschild LLP. The intervenor, Arlo Solutions, LLC, is represented by Olivia L. Lynch, Cherie J. Owen, and Emily P. Golchini of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, Premier Enterprise Solutions, LLC, is represented by Jonathan D. Perrone, Joshua M. Sather, and Timothy J. Turner of Whitcomb, Selinsky, P.C., and Sharon O. Steele of Steele Law Offices, LLC. The government is represented by May Sena and Stephan Piel of Department of Defense. GAO attorneys Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision.
