Washington APEX

How Do I...?

Sell to the Government

Locations

Where We Are

Calendar

Events and Workshops

Washington APEX Accelerator

MENU

Persistence Pays: GAO Sustains After Fourth Protest Due to Unreasonably Narrow Corrective Action

In its recent decision, Peraton, Inc., B-416916.8, et al. (Aug. 3, 2020), GAO ultimately sustained a protest that the Department of State’s corrective action was unreasonably limited—recommending the protester be reimbursed its protest costs in the process. For more on how it reached this result, buckle up! Because it was a long road for the protester to reach the GAO sustain.

Way back in September 2018, Peraton filed a protest—we’ll call it Protest #1—challenging a task order award under the CIO-SP3 GWAC made to Vistronix, LLC. (As an aside, the CIO-SP3 GWAC is, sadly, not a reference to this guy. For more information on what it actually is, look here.) In Protest #1, Peraton argued that Vistronix had “unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest” or OCIs. In response, the Department of State (DOS) took corrective action, agreeing to look into the possible OCI and ultimately agreeing with Peraton. As a result, no task order was awarded.

Almost a year to the day after Protest #1 was filed, DOS issued a new task order under the CIO-SP3 GWAC, this time to Mantech Advanced Systems International, Inc. Ever the eagle-eyed evaluation reviewer, Peraton filed a second protest—Protest #2—alleging that DOS had subjected them to “numerous evaluation errors and disparate treatment” this time around and also that Mantech’s letters of commitment for key personnel didn’t meet the solicitation’s requirements. Following a complete briefing by the parties, GAO conducted outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution (or ADR). It informed the parties that, if GAO were to issue a formal decision in Protest #2, it would likely agree with Peraton and take issue with Mantech’s letters of commitment. So, once again, DOS moved to take corrective action following Protest #2, this time “reopening discussions to confirm the availability of proposed key personnel, update letters of commitment, and validate proposals.”

This brings us to Protest #3. In Protest #3, Peraton challenged the corrective action taken by DOS, arguing that its “corrective action was both unreasonably narrow and reflected an unfair agency bias in favor of ManTech.” But GAO promptly dismissed the protest because DOS’ “corrective action was narrowly focused on the only procurement fault identified in the outcome prediction ADR, and no other portions of an offeror’s proposal would reasonably be affected by the proposed discussions, because the agency only sought confirmation of the availability of previously proposed key personnel.”

Are you still reading? Good! Because we’ve finally reached the protest that GAO sustained here—Protest #4. As part of its corrective action, DOS “issued a discussion letter seeking confirmation that each offeror’s key personnel were available, and requesting updated commitment letters.” Peraton responded, explaining that it had needed to replace some of its initially proposed key personnel and “ask[ing] that offerors be allowed to substitute key personnel and submit new commitment letters and resumes without [DOS] rejecting the proposal as technically unacceptable.” DOS agreed to Peraton’s request and informed offerors that they could “substitute key personnel, but were not required to do so.”

Even though it had received the ability to replace key personnel it requested, Peraton was concerned that these replacements were likely to “materially affect its technical and price proposals and requested that the agency also permit offerors to revise all aspects of their technical and price proposals.” It voiced this concern to DOS, but DOS confirmed that offerors would still only be allowed to make changes to specific parts of their proposals: key personnel resumes, letters of commitment, and one column in their staffing plans.

Peraton protested the narrow scope of revisions DOS permitted—and GAO agreed. GAO stated that that “once the agency made an election to allow proposal revisions, the agency was required to seek these revisions in a reasonable manner” but had not done so. Though it did express some sympathy for DOS, who had now been through the protest process several times a this point, it explained that DOS had made a choice—to allow offerors to update their key personnel—and, because it had done so, also had to “permit offerors to conform the portions of their proposals that refer to key personnel whom they are no longer proposing, whether that reference is by name or to unique qualifications of those individuals that are not shared by the newly proposed personnel.” Otherwise, offerors which opted to update their key personnel would be submitting “materially inconsistent proposal[s].”

In the end, GAO recommended that “DOS amend its proposal revision instructions to permit offerors to revise aspects of their technical proposals to the extent that the revisions relate to the permitted substitutions of key personnel, and thereafter reevaluate the offerors’ revised technical proposals.” It also recommended that “Peraton be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”   

***

If you’re still with me, there are two primary takeaways from this case. First, repeatedly protesting the same procurement—when you have a reasonable basis to do so—can pay off in the end, like it did here. Second, keeping a close eye on the scope of agency evaluations, reevaluations, and corrective action is incredibly important to ensure that the agency is giving all offerors a fair shot at award, no matter what stage of the process things are at. If you have questions about this case, corrective action protests, or anything else about GAO bid protests, we can help.

Syndicated from SmallGovCon

Get Latest News & Updates

News and announcements will be delivered straight to your inbox

Region 6 is hosted by the Thurston County Economic Development Council and serves Pierce County.

ABOUT THE THURSTON EDC

The Thurston Economic Development Council (EDC) is a private non-profit organization.  As the lead economic development organization in Thurston County our mission is to create a vital and sustainable economy throughout the county and region that supports the livelihood and values of our residents. We do this by:

·        Connecting local businesses with experts and resources that help them remain competitive

·        Creating and delivering strategic messages that attract new investment to our community

·        Working with our community partners to enhance our collective prosperity and encourage our economic future 

·        Participating regionally to ensure that Thurston County plays an appropriate role on the regional economic stage.

Pierce County services are primarily provided virtually. 

This location is funded, in part, through a partnership with Pierce County through the Navigator Program

General Contact: pierce@washingtonapex.org

Clallam and Jefferson counties

Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce

Tri City Regional Chamber of Commerce

Region 8 is hosted by the Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce and serves Benton, Columbia, Franklin, Grant, Klickitat, Walla Walla, and Yakima counties.

About the Tri-City Regional Chamber

The Tri-City Regional Chamber of Commerce is the leading business advocate for nearly 1,000 private, public, and non-profit member firms in the Tri-Cities region. The fifth largest chamber in Washington, the Tri-City Regional Chamber advocates for a strong business community and supports the interests of its members. The Regional Chamber is a catalyst for business growth, a convener of leaders and influencers, and a champion for a strong community.

Address

7130 W Grandridge Blvd, Suite C
Kennewick, WA. 99336

Email: tricity@washingtonapex.org

GREATER SPOKANE INC

Region 7 is hosted by Greater Spokane Inc and serves Spokane, Adams, Asotin, Douglas, Ferry, Garfield, Lincoln, Okanogan, Pend Oreille, Stevens and Whitman counties.

ABOUT GREATER SPOKANE INC

Greater Spokane Incorporated (GSI) is the Spokane region’s business development organization, focused on leading transformative business and community initiatives to build a robust regional economy. Founded in 1881 as the Spokane Area Chamber of Commerce, GSI is a nonprofit organization dedicated to creating a vibrant Spokane region by advocating for the region, driving strategic economic growth, and championing a talented workforce. Learn more at GreaterSpokane.org

Address

801 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 100
Spokane, WA 99201

Contact: spokane@washingtonapex.org

Green River College

Region 5 is hosted by the Green River College serves King County.

ABOUT THE GREEN RIVER COLLEGE

The mission of Green River College is to ensure student success through comprehensive programs and support services responsive to our diverse communities.

ADDRESS

1221 D St NE
Suite 210 C
Auburn, WA 98002

Email: king@washingtonapex.org

Economic Alliance Snohomish County

Region 4 is hosted by the Economic Alliance Snohomish County and serves Snohomish, Skagit, Island, San Juan and Whatcom counties.

ABOUT THE EASC

The Economic Alliance Snohomish County (EASC) is a nonprofit serving as a combined economic development organization and a countywide chamber of commerce. We bring together private-public partners to create a unified voice for Snohomish County.

Address

808 134th St. SW, Suite 101
Everett, WA 98204

Email: snohomish@washingtonapex.org

Columbia River Economic Development Council

Region 3 is supported by the Columbia River Economic Development Council and serves the counties of Clark, Cowlitz and Skamania. 

Columbia River Economic Development Council 

Address

805 Broadway St, Suite 412
Vancouver WA 98660

Email: swwa@washingtonapex.org

Thurston County Economic Development Council

Region 2 is hosted by the Thurston County Economic Development Council and serves Thurston, Lewis, Mason, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Wahkiakim, Chelan and Kittatas counties.

This center is also the main center for Washington APEX Accelerator Statewide

ABOUT THE THURSTON EDC

The Thurston Economic Development Council (EDC) is a private non-profit organization.  As the lead economic development organization in Thurston County our mission is to create a vital and sustainable economy throughout the county and region that supports the livelihood and values of our residents. We do this by:

  • Connecting local businesses with experts and resources that help them remain competitive
  • Creating and delivering strategic messages that attract new investment to our community
  • Working with our community partners to enhance our collective prosperity and encourage our economic future
  • Participating regionally to ensure that Thurston County plays an appropriate role on the regional economic stage.

Address
4220 6th Ave
Lacey, WA 98503

General Contact: thurston@washingtonapex.org

Kitsap Economic Development Alliance

Region 1 is hosted by the Kitsap Economic Development Alliance and serves the counties of Kitsap and North Mason.  

ABOUT KEDA

The Kitsap Economic Development Alliance (KEDA) is a 30+ year old public/private nonprofit 501 (c) (6) corporation founded in June 1983. Our goal is to attract and retain jobs and investments in this community that generate wealth, enhance the qualify of life and embrace future generations.

Address
2021 NW Myhre Rd, Suite 100
Silverdale WA 98383

Email:  kitsap@washingtonapex.org