DIGEST<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
The protester alleges that the agency\u2019s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable due to the unavailability of the protester\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The protester first alleges that the agency\u2019s evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable due to the quality assurance manager\u2019s unavailability was not consistent with the TOR. The protester points to the TOR\u2019s 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\u2026<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n