The protester argued the awardee’s key personnel statements of commitment were invalid because they were not signed by the key personnel. GAO denied, finding that the solicitation terms permitted the statement of commitments to be signed by a key person’s current employer.
Magellan Federal, Inc., GAO B-422803; B-422803.2
- Statement of Commitment – The protester argued the awardee’s proposal failed to include a valid statement of commitment as required by the solicitation. The protester thought the solicitation required the key personnel to sign the statement, but GAO found a statement signed by the key personnel’s current employer was sufficient.
- Key Personnel Availability – The protester claimed three of the awardee’s key personnel were unavailable after the proposal submission but before the award. This assertion was based on online job announcements that exactly replicated the key personnel minimum requirements. The agency responded that all the personnel submitted statements of commitment. GAO found that the protester failed to establish its claim of unavailability.
- Exception to Solicitation Requirements – The awardee’s proposal stated: “The government will allow an equitable adjustment for substantial deviations from estimated requirements.” The protester maintained this statement meant that the awardee took exception to the solicitation’s requirement to propose a fixed price. GAO concluded the awardee’s proposal was “phrased as an assumption,” and simply reflected the awardee’s right to request an equitable readjustment if a change was necessary.
- Transition Plan Evaluation – The protester alleged the agency improperly evaluated the technical ratings of the proposals on a pass/fail basis. In doing so, the protester’s superior transition plan received only equal credit to the awardee’s sufficient transition plan. GAO was unpersuaded because the record showed the agency reasonably considered the transition plans and found no other strengths were warranted.
- Unreasonable Weakness – The protester claimed the agency applied unstated evaluation criteria when the agency assigned a weakness for the protester’s proposed “general clerk” position. The protester asserted that the PWS only required education and years of experience to be stated. The agency assigned a weakness because the “general clerk” description did not match the tasks associated with the job. GAO found the weakness was reasonably assigned.
- Unequal Treatment – The protester asserted the agency assigned a significant strength to the awardee’s proposed program management office subject matter expert (PMO SME) but did not assign a strength for the protester’s expert with similar qualifications. When the protester alleged unequal treatment in the technical evaluation, it had to show that the difference in ratings was not because of a difference in proposals. GAO found that the agency reasonably distinguished between the offerors’ proposals. Even though the solicitation did not state the agency would prefer certifications over memberships, the agency’s considerations were reasonably encompassed within the solicitation criteria.
- Other Protests – The protester maintained that numerous other strengths should have been assigned to its proposal. GAO denied these protests. The record showed that the agency reviewed all aspects of the protester’s proposal and reasonably found no more strengths were warranted.
The protester was represented by Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, James G. Peyster, and Issac D. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor was represented by Aron C. Beezley, Patrick R. Quigley, and Gabrielle A. Sprio of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The agency was represented by Kenneth Gilliland and Wade L. Brown of the Army. Janis R. Millete and John Sorrenti of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
