By Government Contracts Editorial Staff
A protest of a task order award for project management, technical support, and logistics services was sustained because the awardee made a material misrepresentation concerning the availability of its proposed personnel. The request for proposals required offerors to submit resumes for all positions and stated the government would evaluate the resumes to determine whether the qualifications and experience met or exceeded the position requirements. The protester proposed a team comprised of 95-percent incumbent personnel and provided resumes for 18 incumbent personnel, and its proposal stated it had “met with the current employees on two occasions and negotiated exclusive letters of commitment with incumbent personnel.” The awardee provided the names and resumes for 26 individuals in its proposal, and 10 of those were for incumbent staff the protester also proposed. The protester contended the awardee proposed personnel it did not reasonably expect would be available for performance under the task order. According to the protester, the awardee did not obtain permission to use the resumes of incumbent personnel in its proposal and did not contact the individuals concerning working on the task order until after the task order was awarded.
Reliance. The Comptroller General explained that the awardee’s proposal specifically stated that it had “reached out to and negotiated contingent offers of employment with candidates for each position” and “leveraged [its] relationship with the incumbent personnel and begun negotiating contingent offers of employment with them.” However, the record showed the awardee received the resumes for the incumbent staff from its proposed subcontractor, which maintained a database that included the resumes of staff who performed under a previous task order. Further, the awardee admitted it did not contact incumbent staff until after it was notified of the award. Thus, contrary to its representation, the awardee did not reach out to and negotiate contingent offers of employment with candidates for each position and did not have prior permission to submit the incumbent employees’ resumes or a prior expression of willingness by the individuals to consider employment with the awardee. The misrepresentation was material because the government relied on the incumbent staff resumes that the awardee submitted and, as a result, the misrepresentation likely had a significant impact on the evaluation. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate the awardee’s proposal, taking into consideration the misrepresentation, and make a new selection decision. (Sev1Tech, Inc., 34 CGEN ¶116,226).
Interested in submitting an article?
Submit your information to us today!Learn More