GAO Unbothered by Awardee’s Deviation from Agency-Provided Staffing Matrix

The protester challenged the agency’s issuance of a task order to a competitor, arguing that the awardee proposed labor categories that fell short of the solicitation’s experience requirements and offered unrealistically low employee compensation. GAO denied the protest, finding the agency reasonably concluded that the awardee’s GSA schedule labor categories were broad enough to encompass the solicited services and that the agency properly weighed the risks associated with the awardee’s staffing deviations.

• Background: The Space Force issued an RFQ under the GSA multiple-award schedule as a small business set-aside for research and experimental development services. The solicitation contemplated a best-value tradeoff based on staffing approach (with staffing matrix and professional employee compensation subfactors), prior experience, and price. The agency issued the task order to the awardee at $83.7 million, rejecting the protester’s $145.2 million quotation despite its technical superiority.
• Staffing Matrix Evaluation: The protester argued the awardee mapped all solicitation labor categories to just four GSA schedule positions that lacked space or aerospace expertise and required less than half the experience specified in the RFQ. GAO disagreed, noting that the agency-provided staffing matrix was a recommendation, not a requirement, and vendors were expressly permitted to deviate with a written explanation. GAO also recognized that GSA schedule labor category descriptions written broadly can still encompass solicited services, and that minimum experience levels in schedule categories don’t prevent vendors from offering more experienced personnel. The agency acknowledged the risks from lower experience levels and rated the quotation acceptable rather than unacceptable—a judgment call within its discretion.
• Professional Employee Compensation: The protester claimed the awardee’s low salaries should have earned a “high risk” rather than “medium risk” rating and that the agency should have used incumbent salary data in evaluating compensation. GAO rejected both arguments. The agency reasonably compared proposed salaries to Bureau of Labor Statistics data and fringe benefits to DOD civilian rates. While acknowledging the awardee’s salaries fell below industry averages, the agency reasonably found the risk was offset by strong fringe benefits exceeding the 29 percent benchmark and supplementary incentives like retention bonuses. Because the solicitation didn’t incorporate FAR 52.222-46, the agency wasn’t obligated to compare compensation to incumbent rates.
• Common Basis for Competition: The protester argued that the wildly divergent quotations proved vendors lacked a common understanding of the requirements, obligating the agency to amend the solicitation. The agency had already released a draft RFQ, answered 34 industry questions, and provided a recommended staffing estimate. The price disparity reflected different business strategies expressly permitted by the solicitation, not disparate understandings. The protester chose to exceed minimum requirements while the awardee chose permitted deviations.

CounselThe protester is represented by Amy L. O’Sullivan, Cherie J. Owen, and Issac D. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, ITSC Secure Solutions, LLC, is represented by Robert J. Wagman, Jr. of White & Case LLP and Lauren E. Davidson of Bracewell LLP. The government is represented by Siobhan K. Donahue, Erika Whelan Retta, and Jennifer L. Brandenburg of the Department of the Air Force. GAO attorneys Janis R. Millete and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.