Aver, LLC (15JPSS20R0000048)
Case: B-419244
Agency: Department of Justice : Justice Management Division
Protester: Aver, LLC
Date: 2020-11-02
Dismissed
B-419244
Nov 02, 2020
Jump To
VIEW DECISION
DOWNLOADS
RELATED PAGES
GAO CONTACTS
Highlights
AVER, LLC, a small business, of Washington, DC, challenges the issuance of a task order to IntePros Federal, Inc., also of Washington, DC, by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15JPSS20R0000048, which was issued for support of the agency's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The protester argues that the awardee's proposal contained a material misrepresentation concerning the availability of an individual proposed for a key personnel position.
We dismiss the protest.
View Decision
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: AVER, LLC
File: B-419244
Date: November 2, 2020
Tenley A. Carp, Esq., Micah Kanters, Esq., and Georgina Shepard, Esq., Arnall Golden Gregory LLP, for the protester.
Stephanie D. Wilson, Esq., and Terrence M. O’Connor, Esq., Berenzweig Leonard LLP, for IntePros Federal, Inc., the intervenor.
Christopher Radcliffe, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.
Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that the awardee materially misrepresented the availability of an individual proposed for a key personnel position is dismissed where the argument relies on the existence and enforceability of a non-compete agreement, which is a private dispute that GAO does not review.
DECISION
AVER, LLC, a small business, of Washington, DC, challenges the issuance of a task order to IntePros Federal, Inc., also of Washington, DC, by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15JPSS20R0000048, which was issued for support of the agency’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The protester argues that the awardee’s proposal contained a material misrepresentation concerning the availability of an individual proposed for a key personnel position.
We dismiss the protest.
BACKGROUND
DOJ issued the solicitation on June 10, 2020, seeking proposals to provide information technology, enterprise architecture, and program management office services for EOIR. RFP at 5.[1] The competition was limited to firms that hold indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 contracts, which were awarded by the National Institutes of Health. Id. at 4. The solicitation anticipated the award of a time-and-materials task order with a base period of 1 year and four 1-year options. Id. at 4, 33. As relevant here, the RFP required offerors to propose the following four key personnel positions: (1) program manager, (2) enterprise architect, (3) business process requirements analyst, and (4) quality assurance specialist. Id. at 29. Offerors were required to provide a resume for all proposed key personnel. Id. at 40.
DOJ advised AVER on September 8 that it had selected IntePros’s proposal for award of a task order valued at $38,671,003. Protest at 2; id., exh B., Unsuccessful Offeror Notice, at 2. On September 16, AVER’s proposed subcontractor Citizant, Inc.[2] received notice from one of its employees that she would be resigning from the company, effective September 30. Protest at 3, 9-10. This letter did not identify another employer for whom the individual intended to work. Protest, exh. D, Resignation Letter at 3. The protester states that on September 22, Citizant learned that this individual had accepted employment with iTech AG, which was a proposed subcontractor for IntePros, and that she would be serving as the program manager for the awardee. Protest at 9-11. The protester further states that Citizant terminated the individual’s employment on September 22, based on what the firm states was a breach of the non-compete agreement between the individual and the company. Id.
Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...