Sehlke Consulting, LLC (NRO000-21-R-0226)

B-420538 May 18, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sehlke Consulting LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to KPMG LLP, of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NRO000-21-R-0226, which was issued by the Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), for combined finance support services. The protester asserts that KPMG's proposal should have been evaluated as technically unacceptable because one of its proposed key personnel became unavailable to perform on the resulting contract prior to the agency completing its evaluation and award decision. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Sehlke Consulting, LLC File: B-420538 Date: May 18, 2022 Damien C. Specht, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Dominique L. Casimir, Esq., Michael J. Montalbano, Esq., and Robyn N. Burrows, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for KPMG LLP, the intervenor. Christopher Van Horne, Esq., Tyler E. Merkel, Esq., Marci A. Lawson, Esq., and Brian A. Young, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the awardee’s proposal is unacceptable due to the subsequent unavailability of a proposed key person is sustained when the agency had actual notice prior to completing its evaluation and making its award decision that the individual was resigning from the awardee’s subcontractor and was scheduled to depart prior to the commencement of contract performance. DECISION Sehlke Consulting LLC, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to KPMG LLP, of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. NRO000-21-R-0226, which was issued by the Department of Defense, National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), for combined finance support services. The protester asserts that KPMG’s proposal should have been evaluated as technically unacceptable because one of its proposed key personnel became unavailable to perform on the resulting contract prior to the agency completing its evaluation and award decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued in August 2021 and subsequently amended once, sought proposals for combined finance support services within NRO’s Business Plans and Operations Directorate, Office of Finance. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1Y, Conformed RFP, Statement of Work (SOW) at 2.[1] The contractor will be responsible for providing financial support services across a host of financial management areas, including: accounting and finance consulting; accounts payable; audit liaison; auditable financial statement generation; budget execution, tracking, and reconciliation of current, prior, and future year funds; general financial management; internal controls; enterprise funds execution; policy development; posting contractual obligations; property management and accounting; standard general ledger analysis; treasury operations payment and reconciliation functions; and travel processing. Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee, level-of-effort contract, with a 2-year base period (with performance expected to commence on February 1, 2022), and two, 2-year option periods. AR, Tab 1Z, Conformed RFP, attach. 10, Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors at 3. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis with non-cost and cost factors to be given equal weight. The non-cost factor included five constituent “items,” which are listed in descending order of importance: (1) management; (2) past performance; (3) organizational conflict of interest; (4) intellectual property; and (5) security. AR, Tab 1CC, Conformed RFP, attach. 11, Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award at 2. The management item was further divided into four factors: (a) key personnel; (b) staffing; (c) management approach; and (d) transition approach. The key personnel factor was slightly more important than the staffing and management approaches factors, which in turn were slightly more important than the transition approach factor. Id. at 3. As addressed herein, only the key personnel factor is material to our resolution of the protest. The RFP required offerors to provide resumes and letters of commitment for four specific key personnel positions. AR, Tab 1Z, Conformed RFP, attach. 10, Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors at 12; Tab 1L, Conformed RFP, Section L – attach. 1, Resume Template for Key Personnel. For each of the four required positions, the RFP included both expected and desired education and experience levels. AR, Tab 1Y, Conformed RFP, SOW at 21-25.