• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

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

Matter of Engility Corporation, B-413202; B-413202.2

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • September 30, 2016
  • Bid Protests
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Engility Corporation, B-413202; B-413202.2

Agency:  Department of the Army

Disposition:  Sustained

Keywords:  Non-responsible

Decided: September 2, 2016

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: The distinction between matters that are required to be “technically acceptable” and matters that establish “responsibility” dictate whether a proposal can be supplemented with additional, clarifying information.

General Facts

Engility Corporation was eliminated from competition under a request for proposals for software and engineering support services after the Agency found Engility non-responsible.  The RFP required all proposers to be presently in possession of facility clearance of Top Secret for the prime.  It stated the Contracting Officer will screen for this “upon submission” in accordance with FAR 9.104-2.

Upon receipt of Engility’s proposal, the Agency sought to verify their Top Secret Clearance.  Instead, the agency discovered the CAGE code provided belonged to TASC, Inc., with an address in another state.  

The Agency sought to clarify this inconsistency.  Discussions were had between the contracting officer and a security specialist at the Command Industrial Security Office to attempt to resolve the issue.  Agency became aware of a merger between Engility and TASC, and was further made aware that the System for Award Management (SAM) indicated Engility was doing business as TASC under the provided CAGE code.

Over the course of several emails in the following days, the security specialist indicated, “My guess is that the buyout has not gone through novation.”  After the security officer spoke with “someone” at the DSS facility in Chantilly, she conveyed the following to the Agency: there was a “buyout” involving Engility and TASC; he was unsure when the transaction would be completed; and that “a lot of paperwork. . . is required by DSS to process the change.”

Despite the documentation in SAM, the security specialist told the agency, in relevant part, “The CAGE code listed in Engility’s DD254 corresponds to a company (TASC) who at this point is not the same entity as Engility when researched in ISFD.” Therefore, the security specialist concluded Engility lacked Top Secret Security Clearance and as such, Engility was not eligible for the award.

Upon being notified of this decision, Engility responded, with the CAGE code for its Chantilly, Va. facility and some additional information, including that the CAGE code provided in the proposal was properly linked with Engility in SAM.  The Agency notified Engility that the original determination that Engility was non-responsible stood.  Engility then filed a protest.

Additional evidence

As part of the record for the protest, Engility provided the documentation necessary that appears to establish that Engility did, in fact, acquire TASC, Inc.; consolidated a number of contracts; and that the name changes and agreements were submitted to the proper authorities.  In short, the documents appear to establish that at all times during the application process, Engility was approved as top secret facility.  Therefore, it appeared to the GAO that Engility met the requirements of the solicitation.

General standard of review regarding negative responsibility determinations

Generally, contracting officers are given “a wide degree of discretion and, of necessity, must rely upon his or her business judgment in exercising that discretion.”  Torres Int’l, LLC, B-404940, May 31, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 114 at 4.  Determinations must be made in good faith and factually supported, however, “the ultimate decision appropriately is left to the agency, since it must bear the effects of any difficulties experienced in obtaining the required performance.”  Consequently, the GAO, as a general rule, will not disturb a determination of non-responsibility unless agency bad faith or a lack of reasonable basis can be established by the protester.  Colonial Press Int’l, Inc., B-403632, Oct. 18, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 247 at 2.

Why the protest was sustained

The agency argued (correctly) that the RFP was a FAR part 16 acquisition and that the FAR part 15’s “evaluation and discussion” procedure was not applicable.  The GAO agrees, but notes that “rules relating to clarifications and discussions have no application to possible inquiries regarding matters of responsibility.”  (Citing McKissack+Delcan JV II, B-401973.2, B-401973.4, Jan. 13, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 28 at 6-8, the GAO noted that exchanges between an agency and an offeror regarding responsibility does not rise to the level of prohibited discussions.)

Further, determinations of responsibility or lack thereof must be determined based on information provided to the agency at any time up to the time the award is made.  FAR § 9.105-1(b)(3); Sygnetics, Inc., B-404535.5, Aug. 25, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 164 at 4.  Consequently, the GAO recommended the Agency review all the information now provided by Engility, and reconsider the non-responsibility determination.

Words matter

In prior years, the agency categorized their security requirements as a matter of technical acceptability.  In the current year, the agency categorized their security requirements as a matter of responsibility.  Essentially, the court says, “You made your bed.  Lie in it.”  Having made the requirement of security clearance a matter of responsibility, the agency is bound to accept information provided at any time during the pendency of the proposal, up to the point of award.

Share

Related Posts

GAO’s BID PROTEST – 2020 YEAR IN REVIEW

January 19, 2021

New Procedure For Submitting Bid Protests Coming in May 2018

April 17, 2018

Matter of David Jones, CPA PC

October 13, 2017

Timely Filing in the Matter of: SageCare, Inc.; AeroSage, LLC

August 14, 2017

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 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

+1-571-223-6845