Photo of John E. McCarthy Jr.Photo of Christian CurranPhoto of Rina GashawPhoto of Liam O'Reilly

In Peraton Inc., GAO sustained a challenge to the scope of an agency’s corrective action. The State Department awarded a task order to ManTech. Peraton challenged that award on numerous grounds, including on the basis that the awardee’s letters of commitment for key personnel did not satisfy solicitation requirements. After an outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution teleconference in which GAO informed the parties that it believed this challenge to be meritorious, the agency undertook corrective action by reopening discussions to confirm the availability of proposed key personnel, update letters of commitment, and validate proposals.

During the corrective action, Peraton requested the agency expand the scope of corrective action to allow it to replace several of its key personnel that were no longer available. The agency did so, but refused a subsequent request from Peraton to also permit further revisions to offerors’ technical and price proposals to account for the changes in the proposed key personnel.

Peraton protested that the agency’s proposed scope of corrective action was unreasonably narrow, arguing that it forced offerors to submit a proposal that is facially inconsistent and would not comply with the solicitation’s requirement that key personnel and staffing be aligned with an offeror’s technical approach. The agency complained that “no good deed goes unpunished” as it allowed for key personnel substitution to accommodate the protester, but GAO agreed with the protester that the corrective action was unduly restrictive because it should have permitted changes to other sections of the technical proposal affected by the key personnel changes, which were discussed at length in Peraton’s technical proposal. However, GAO agreed with the agency in finding that the restriction on changes to price proposals was reasonable, as there was no clear reason to believe pricing would be affected by substitution of key personnel and the awardee’s price had already been disclosed.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of John E. McCarthy Jr. John E. McCarthy Jr.

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small…

John E. McCarthy, Jr. is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Crowell & Moring and member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group. John has spent more than thirty years litigating all forms of government contracts cases for both large and small government contractors, with a particular emphasis on bid protests. Because of John’s strong engineering background, he has particular experience in technology related issues, including litigation regarding complex technology and data rights, patent and other intellectual property issues.

Photo of Christian Curran Christian Curran

Christian N. Curran is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group. His practice focuses on government contracts litigation and counseling, including bid protests, government investigations, and compliance with federal and state procurement laws…

Christian N. Curran is a partner in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts Group. His practice focuses on government contracts litigation and counseling, including bid protests, government investigations, and compliance with federal and state procurement laws and regulations.

Christian has broad experience in the government contracts arena, including bid protest litigation at both the Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims, contract claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, prime-sub disputes, internal investigations, mandatory disclosures, transactional due diligence, Defense Contract Audit Agency audits, and compliance assessments. He also has experience in both traditional litigation and alternative dispute resolution forums, including international arbitration and mediation, and administrative proceedings before various government agencies.

Photo of Rina Gashaw Rina Gashaw

Rina M. Gashaw is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where she is a member of the Government Contracts Group. Rina’s practice focuses on a range of government contracts issues, including government investigations, client counseling, and providing government contracts due diligence…

Rina M. Gashaw is an associate in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, where she is a member of the Government Contracts Group. Rina’s practice focuses on a range of government contracts issues, including government investigations, client counseling, and providing government contracts due diligence in transactional matters. Her practice also includes bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Photo of Liam O'Reilly Liam O'Reilly

William B. O’Reilly is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Liam assists clients with all phases of government contracting, including contract formation and award controversies, performance counseling, and claims…

William B. O’Reilly is a counsel in Crowell & Moring’s Washington, D.C. office, where he is a member of the firm’s Government Contracts Group.

Liam assists clients with all phases of government contracting, including contract formation and award controversies, performance counseling, and claims and disputes litigation. His practice includes representing clients in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office and U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Liam also regularly advises clients on supply chain risk management, addressing issues such as cybersecurity, country of origin and domestic preferences, and counterfeit part detection and avoidance, as well as conducting internal investigations and mandatory disclosures for performance breaches and potential violations of the False Claims Act (FCA).