GAO decisions/Sustained/Decided 18 May 2022
Sehlke Consulting, LLC
Key personnel unavailability known before award
The procurement
Finance support services under a cost-plus-award-fee, level-of-effort contract (2-year base plus two 2-year options), awarded on a best-value tradeoff with non-cost and cost factors weighted equally. KPMG, the incumbent, was selected at an evaluated cost of about $35.1 million.
The protest
Sehlke argued that KPMG's proposal should have been rated technically unacceptable. One of KPMG's proposed key personnel, a senior financial consultant working for KPMG's subcontractor, resigned on January 11, 2022 to take another job. KPMG told the incumbent contract's COTR on January 18, and the source selection decision was signed on January 25 anyway.
The agency’s answer
The agency and KPMG said the consultant was technically still available on January 25, because his resignation did not take effect until January 28. They argued GAO's key personnel decisions don't cover a departure that hasn't happened yet, since an employee can change his mind before leaving.
What decided it
Once the agency knew the key person had definitely resigned before performance began, it couldn't credit him in the evaluation.
GAO held it was unreasonable to evaluate KPMG on a key person the agency had no realistic expectation would perform, because the resignation was definite and the operative date was the February 1 start of performance. GAO recommended that NRO either reevaluate KPMG's proposal without the consultant or open discussions with offerors, make a new source selection, and reimburse Sehlke's protest costs.
“Based on the facts here, we find that it was unreasonable for the agency to base its evaluation on KPMG's offer of a senior financial consultant it had no realistic expectation would perform on the contract.”
GAO, B-420538
For the file: If anyone on the evaluation team, even the COTR, hears before award that a proposed key person has resigned, the file needs a reevaluation without that person or discussions with everyone. A selection memo that still credits the resume won't hold up.
Read the decision at GAO →
Facts are condensed from the published decision and the quote is verbatim; the takeaway is ours. Where GAO decided several grounds, only this one is described.
Could you have called it?
Protest! is the daily game: three real GAO decisions, both sides laid out. Rule sustain, deny or dismiss, then pick what decided it.
Play today’s Protest!