Ashlin Management Group (1605C2-20-Q-00006)

B-419472.3,B-419472.4 Nov 04, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASHLIN Management Group, Inc., a small business of Bowie, Maryland, protests the issuance of an order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605C2-20-Q-00006, issued by the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration for consulting services connected to the Department's Job Corps program. Among other things, the protester contends that the agency should have evaluated BAH's quotation as technically unacceptable due to the unavailability of one of BAH's quoted key personnel. We sustain 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:  Ashlin Management Group File:  B-419472.3; B-419472.4 Date:  November 4, 2021 Jerome S. Gabig, Esq., Richard J.R. Raleigh, Jr., Esq., and Christopher L. Lockwood, Esq., Wilmer & Lee, PA, for the protester. Anthony J. Marchese, Esq., and Carol L. O’Riordan, Esq., O’Riordan Bethel Law Firm, LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., the intervenor. Jose Otero, Esq., Jonathan I. Pomerance, Esq., and Robert S. Proudfoot, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that awardee’s proposal is unacceptable due to failure to notify agency that a quoted key person became unavailable during corrective action period is sustained when the awardee had actual knowledge of its key person’s unavailability. DECISION ASHLIN Management Group, Inc., a small business of Bowie, Maryland, protests the issuance of an order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1605C2-20-Q-00006, issued by the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration for consulting services connected to the Department’s Job Corps program.  Among other things, the protester contends that the agency should have evaluated BAH’s quotation as technically unacceptable due to the unavailability of one of BAH’s quoted key personnel. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On September 9, 2020, utilizing the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the solicitation to federal supply schedule contract holders.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 1, RFQ at 1, 3.[1]  The solicitation sought quotations for a vendor to assist the National Office of Job Corps in identifying, developing, and implementing career pathway programming with a “focus on transitioning Job Corps from a career technical training program to a career technical education program.”  Id. at 3.  Job Corps is a program with “more than 55 years of experience providing a combination of career technical training, academic instruction, and support services to at-risk young people ages 16-24.”  Id. at 5.  Through the solicitation, “Job Corps is seeking a system-wide assessment of its current career technical training (CTT) model and a study of similar programs or models from which conclusions and recommendations are made for expanding and strengthening the CTT program’s ability to identify and provide in-demand skilled work, competitive wages, and viable paths to career growth.”  Id. The solicitation contemplated issuance of a time-and-materials order for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  RFQ at 9-11, 24, 36.  The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following non-price factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) key personnel, staff experience and qualifications (key personnel); (3) management plan; and (4) past performance.  Id. at 37.  The non‑price factors were listed in descending order of importance, and combined were significantly more important than price.  Id.  As relevant here, under the second most important factor (key personnel), the solicitation required vendors to describe their “processes for recruiting, retaining, and providing highly skilled qualified personnel,” and advised that the agency would evaluate “[t]he effectiveness” of a vendor’s “proposed plan.”  Id.