Decision Released: Protest Denial of $2.8B US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) SITEC 3 EOM contract award

DIGEST

1. Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable due to the unavailability of a proposed key individual is denied where the agency’s evaluation was consistent with the solicitation’s terms, and the agency was not required to enter into discussions to permit a substitution.
2. Protest that the agency failed to consider relevant information in making an affirmative responsibility determination is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the agency knew or should have known about the information.
3. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct a Procurement Integrity Act investigation is dismissed as factually and legally insufficient.

DISCUSSION

The protester alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable due to the unavailability of the protester’s proposed quality assurance manager was unreasonable and inconsistent with the TOR. The protester further alleges that the agency improperly determined that Peraton is responsible, and unreasonably failed to conduct a PIA investigation. For the reasons discussed below, we find no basis on which to sustain the protest.

The protester first alleges that the agency’s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable due to the quality assurance manager’s unavailability was not consistent with the TOR. The protester points to the TOR’s listing of specific pass/fail elements, among which were the requirements to name key personnel and provide a letter of commitment for each key individual at the time of proposal submission…

DECISION

Jacobs Technology Inc., of Tullahoma, Tennessee, protests the issuance of a task order to Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under task order request (TOR) No. 47QFCA23R0003, issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, for network operations and technical support services required by the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The protester contends that the agency unreasonably found that the protester’s proposal was unacceptable due to the unavailability of a proposed key person, improperly determined that Peraton was responsible, and unreasonably refused to conduct a Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) investigation. We deny in part and dismiss in part the protest.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story