The GAO’s decision in SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC, B-414519 (July 5, 2o17) involved an Air Force solicitation for engineering, program management, and administrative services at Eglin Air Force Base. They intended to award to the offeror proposing the best value to the government, considering three factors: technical capability and risk, past performance, and cost/price. There were four technical subfactors, including a sub-factor for technical workforce management.
SURVICE Engineering Company, LLC (SEC), was the incumbent contractor. SEC submitted a proposal and proposed to retain its incumbent personnel. Engineering Research and Consulting, Inc. (ERC) also submitted a proposal, where they proposed to recruit many of SURVICE’s incumbent personnel.
So how would you evaluate these proposals?
In the technical workforce management sub-factor evaluation, the Air Force gave ERC a strength for proposing to recruit SEC’s “high-performing, highly-skilled senior staff.” They did not give SEC a strength for proposing to retain its own incumbents. The Air Force awarded the contract to ERC.
SEC filed a GAO bid protest, which contained several issues, including accusing the agency of unequal treatment in the evaluation of the technical workforce management sub-factor. SEC felt if ERC was given a strength for recruiting SEC’s incumbent personnel, they should have also given them a strength for proposing to retain the same people.
GAO agreed and sustained that portion of SEC’s protest.
The source selection evaluation has to be fair to all offerors. You must treat all the offerors the same, including the incumbent. In essence, both companies were proposing the same exact personnel so equal credit should have been given.