• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Key Personnel Turn the Lock on the Contract Clock

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • September 14, 2022
  • Key Personnel
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Sehlke Consulting, LLC

Decided: May 18, 2022

Agency: Department of Defense

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords: Key Personnel

 

Protest Insight

This case demonstrates that Key Personnel must be available at start of contract for that specific personnel to be considered as part of the proposal. Here, GAO held that the operative date for consideration of the impact of the key person’s departure is the date contract performance is set to start, not the date an award selection is made. This case also reminds offerors of the importance of promptly notifying an agency of any change of Key Personnel. In the event of a change in availability of Key Personnel, the agency may either evaluate the proposal as submitted in light of the change, or hold discussions to allow for proposal revisions.

Companies should thoroughly evaluate the potential for success with any protest situation. The time, expense, and negative consequences associated with challenging your Government customer warrants a strategic evaluation between your executive leadership, capture, proposal, and legal teams.  General Counsel has the experience and drive to assist clients with assessing award decisions, developing legal courses of action, filing either as an unsuccessful bid protestor or the awardee intervenor, litigating the protest, and developing post-decision lessons learned for more effective future business development practices.

Summary of Facts

Sehlke Consulting LLC protests the award of a contract to KPMG LLP under request for proposals (RFP) No. NRO000-21-R-0226, issued by the Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The RFP was issued in August 2021 and sought proposals for combined finance support services within NRO’s Business Plans and Operations Directorate, Office of Finance. Performance under the contract was expected to commence on February 1, 2022. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and non-cost factors, including key personnel. The RFP required offerors to provide resumes and letters of commitment for four specific key personnel positions, including the senior financial consultant position.

NRO received three proposals in response to the RFP, including from Sehlke and KPMG. The proposal submitted by KPMG on September 30, identified a candidate for the required senior financial consultant position who was employed by KPMG’s subcontractor. On January 11, 2022, the proposed senior financial consultant notified KPMG’s subcontractor that he was resigning and indicated his last day as January 28. On January 14, the subcontractor notified KPMG of the individual’s resignation. On January 18, KPMG notified the contracting officer’s technical representative (COTR) for the incumbent and follow-on contract that the financial consultant had resigned and would be departing within two weeks.

The source selection authority found that the advantages of KPMG’s proposal, “specifically KPMG’s exceptional response to [the] most important management factor Key Personnel” warranted the associated cost premium and selected KPMG for award.

Basis of Protest

Sehlke argues that the NRO should have evaluated KPMG’s proposal as technically unacceptable when, prior to completing its evaluation of proposals and making its award decision, KPMG advised the agency that its proposed senior financial consultant had submitted a formal notice of resignation, thus putting the agency on notice that one of KPMG’s proposed key personnel was unavailable to perform the contract as KPMG had proposed. NRO argues that despite the individual’s pending departure, the individual technically remained an employee of KPMG’s subcontractor on the date the agency executed the source selection decision.

Protest Sustained

GAO explained that a fundamental principal of federal procurement law is that “an agency’s evaluation of proposals must reflect a reasonable assessment of each offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract requirements.” Further, a proposal that fails to conform to a material solicitation requirement is technically unacceptable and cannot form the basis for award. GAO also noted “that it is generally improper for an agency to award a contract or task order with the intent to materially alter it at or shortly after award.” Especially relevant here, “when a solicitation requires resumes for—or otherwise requires the identification of–specific personnel, the proposed person forms a material requirement of the solicitation.” GAO explained that “in the event of a change in availability of such staff or resources, the agency may either evaluate the proposal as submitted in light of the change, or hold discussions to allow for proposal revisions.”

Here, the record shows that KPMG’s proposed senior financial consultant submitted a letter of resignation to his employer and provided a firm resignation date predating the RFP’s anticipated February 1 performance commencement date. KPMG notified the government of the individual’s resignation prior to NRO completing its evaluation and award decision, but the agency did not consider the impact of the resignation on KPMG’s proposal or conduct discussions. Thus, GAO determined that NRO had actual notice with KPMG’s pre-award notice that one of its proposed key persons had resigned, and therefore would not be available to perform on the contract as KPMG had proposed. GAO held that with this notice, NRO was required either to evaluate the proposal as submitted in light of the change, or to conduct discussions with offerors.

GAO also concluded that “it was unreasonable for the agency to base its evaluation on KPMG’s offer of a senior financial consultant it had no realistic expectation would perform on the contract.” GAO found that NRO could not reasonably ignore this fact simply because the individual had not yet completed the final two weeks of employment when the agency made its selection decision. GAO held that “the operative date for consideration of the impact of the key person’s departure was February 1 (at the start of contract performance), not the January 25 selection decision date.”

GAO concluded that the agency either needed to evaluate KPMG’s proposal without reliance on this candidate for a required key person position, or open discussions and solicit revised proposals. Since the agency did neither, GAO sustained the protest. 

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in government contract law, helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations. If you need more guidance or information, contact Craig Lawless, Senior Counsel in our Government Contracts practice area at General Counsel, P.C., 703-266-1865.

 

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: PAE National Security Solutions, LLC

July 22, 2021

Matter of M.C. Dean

August 7, 2020

Coastal Environmental Group, Inc., B-407563; B-407563.3; B-407563.4, January 14, 2013

January 23, 2013

Lamar Strong Associates, LLC, B-407170, November 19, 2012

December 5, 2012

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411