Arlluk Technology Solutions, LLC (NIEHS-RFQ-22-6223146)

B-421008.4 Feb 23, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arlluk Technology Solutions, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC, B-421008, et al., Dec. 2, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 294, in which we sustained the protest of ASRC challenging the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Arlluk under request for quotations (RFQ) No. NIEHS-RFQ-22-6223146, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for information technology services. Arlluk maintains that our prior decision contained errors of fact and law. Alternatively, Arlluk requests that we modify our prior recommendation for corrective action. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of: Arlluk Technology Solutions, LLC--Reconsideration File: B-421008.4 Date: February 23, 2023 Devin E. Hewitt, Esq., Potomac Law Group, PLLC, for the requestor. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the request does not show that our earlier decision contained an error of fact or law, or present information not previously considered that would merit modification or reversal of our earlier decision. DECISION Arlluk Technology Solutions, LLC, of Chantilly, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC, B-421008, et al., Dec. 2, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 294, in which we sustained the protest of ASRC challenging the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Arlluk under request for quotations (RFQ) No. NIEHS-RFQ-22-6223146, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services for information technology services. Arlluk maintains that our prior decision contained errors of fact and law. Alternatively, Arlluk requests that we modify our prior recommendation for corrective action. We deny the request for reconsideration. Among other things, ASRC’s protest challenged the issuance of the BPA to Arlluk on the grounds that the firm’s quotation included a material misrepresentation relating to the availability of two key personnel. We sustained ASRC’s protest, finding with respect to one of the two key personnel--identified in our decision as Dr. B--that Arlluk had misrepresented the availability of the individual in question; that the agency had relied on Arlluk’s misrepresentation; and that the agency’s reliance had a material effect on its evaluation of quotations and eventual source selection decision. In light of our conclusion, we sustained ASRC’s protest, and recommended that the agency remove Arlluk from further participation in the competition. Of paramount concern during the pendency of the earlier protest was the question whether Dr. B had made a commitment to work for Arlluk prior to the time the firm submitted its quotation. Arlluk initially represented that it had made--and that Dr. B had accepted--a contingent offer of employment in June 2021. Notwithstanding Arlluk’s initial representation on this question, our decision focused on an e-mail sent by Dr. B to Arlluk in July 2022, when the firm was preparing its quotation. That e-mail advised Arlluk that Dr. B had executed a mandatory agreement to be exclusively committed to working for ASRC. The e-mail provided as follows: I just signed a mandatory document with ASRC this morning that “I am exclusively committed to this effort with [ASRC] as the Prime Contractor. No other company is authorized to use my resume in their proposal.” Good luck with the proposal[.] ASRC Supplemental Record Materials, Exh. A, at 1‑2. Despite the clear terms of this July 2022 e-mail from Dr. B, Arlluk maintained that, because Dr. B had not expressly repudiated its June 2021 contingent offer, Arlluk had “read between the lines” of this e-mail and concluded that Dr. B had made the commitment to ASRC under duress; in other words, Arlluk took the position that the e-mail did not actually mean what it said. Arlluk Supplemental Filing, Nov. 9, 2022, at 2-3. We were not persuaded by Arlluk’s explanation of events, and concluded that Arlluk did not have a reasonable basis for deciding to include Dr. B’s resume in its quotation. In light of our conclusion, we sustained ASRC’s protest, finding that Arlluk had made a material misrepresentation in its quotation. In its request for reconsideration, Arlluk essentially continues to take the position that the e-mail from Dr. B did not actually mean what it said. According to Arlluk: Stated in another way, the GAO ignored the way in which the email was written which altered the “plain” meaning of the words included in the email. The text of the email is akin to a situation when a person speaking makes a statement and then winks at the same time as making the statement. Adding [a] “wink” to the statement alters the meaning of the statement.