• 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

Matter of AVER, LLC

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • March 9, 2021
  • GAO JurisdictionScope of GAO Review
  • 0 Comments

Matter of AVER, LLC

Agency: Department of Justice

Disposition: Protest Dismissed

Decided: November 2, 2020

Keywords: Scope of GAO Review; GAO Jurisdiction

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: 

Protest dismissed where the protester argued the awardee materially misrepresented the availability of an individual proposed for a key personnel position, due to the existence and enforceability of a non-compete agreement. Such arguments concern private disputes that GAO does not review.

Summary of Facts 

AVER, LLC, a small business, challenges the issuance of a task order to IntePros Federal, Inc., by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, under RFP No. 15JPSS20R0000048. The solicitation was issued on June 10, 2020, seeking proposals to provide information technology, enterprise architecture, and program management office services for Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).

The competition was limited to firms that hold indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 contracts. The solicitation anticipated the award of a time-and-materials task order with a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options. The RFP required offerors to propose four key personnel positions: (1) program manager, (2) enterprise architect, (3) business process requirements analyst, and (4) quality assurance specialist. 

DOJ informed AVER on September 8 that it had selected IntePros’s proposal for award. On September 16, AVER’s proposed subcontractor Citizant, Inc. received notice from one of its employees that she would be resigning from the company, effective September 30. On September 22, Citizant learned that this individual had accepted employment with iTech AG, a proposed subcontractor for IntePros, and that she would be serving as the program manager for the awardee. Citizant terminated the individual’s employment on September 22, based on a breach of the non-compete agreement between the individual and the company. AVER filed this protest.

Basis of Protest 

AVER argues that IntePros’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation concerning the availability of an individual proposed for a key personnel position.  Specifically, AVER argued that the proposed individual was prohibited from working for IntePros’s proposed subcontractor as she was subject to a noncompete agreement. AVER argues that because of the noncompete agreement, IntePros could not have reasonably expected this individual to be available to perform on the contract, and that the misrepresentation of her availability renders IntePros’s proposal technically unacceptable. IntePros argues that AVER’s allegations are predicated on the existence and enforceability of a non-compete agreement, and that GAO does not review such matters.

Protest Dismissed

GAO explained that whether personnel identified in a vendor’s proposal actually perform under the subsequent award is generally a matter of contract administration that GAO does not review. However, GAO will consider “allegations that a vendor proposed personnel that it did not have a reasonable basis to expect to provide during contract performance in order to obtain a more favorable evaluation, as such a material misrepresentation has an adverse effect on the integrity of the competitive procurement system.”

Here, AVER argues that IntePros proposed an individual for the program manager position that it knew or should have known that it could not provide, since she was subject to a contract which prevented her from assuming the position for IntePros. AVER argues that IntePros could not have reasonably expected to provide the individual on Day 1 of the contract when she was legally prohibited from becoming an employee of IntePros or its subcontractors.

GAO explained that AVER’s arguments rely on contractual obligations between the individual and the protester’s proposed subcontractor. GAO concluded that AVER’s arguments concern disputes between private parties that it does not review. GAO confirmed that it “generally does not review disputes between private parties that do not involve the procuring agency.” Specifically, GAO previously held that it “will not review a protester’s allegation that the awardee will violate a non-compete agreement, as it concerns a private dispute that does not involve government action.”

AVER then argued that it isn’t requesting that GAO enforce the terms of the noncompete agreement or that the award is improper based solely on the agreement. AVER alleges that, instead, the existence of the non-compete is a material fact that supports the proper ground for protest that IntePros failed to comply with the material requirements of the Solicitation to bid a Program Manager who would be available on Day 1 of contract performance. However, GAO determined that “the enforceability of the non-compete agreement is inseparable from the issue of whether the awardee had a reasonable basis to propose the individual.” Since AVER’s argument that IntePros did not have a reasonable basis to propose the individual for the program manager position depends on a presumption that the noncompete agreement is enforceable and will prevent her employment with iTech, GAO concluded the issues were inextricably linked.

The GAO dismissed the protest on this basis.

Tagged

AVERGOA JurisdictionLLCNon-competeScope of GOA Review

Share

Related Posts

Who Knew SCA is Spelled DOL Rather than GAO

April 18, 2022

Matter of Sea Box, Inc.

January 19, 2022

Matter of DLF-CPC JV, LLC

September 4, 2020

Matter of R B Toth Associates LLC

March 25, 2020

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