About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



B-416733.2 1 (2019-03-18)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadvsc0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 



G     A     O       U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
441 G St. N.W.                                                   Comptroller General
Washington, DC 20548                                              of the United States
                                                 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
                                               The decision issued on the date below was subject to
                                               a GAO Protective Order. This version has been
Decision                                     .approved for public release.



Matter of:   Department of Defense--Reconsideration

File:        B-416733.2

Date:     March 18, 2019

Stephan Piel, Esq., Department of Defense, for the requester.
Alex J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, for the protester.
Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST

Request for reconsideration of a prior decision sustaining a protest concerning an
unduly restrictive solicitation provision is denied, where the requester does not show
that the prior decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification
of the decision.
DECISION

The Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, requests
reconsideration of our decision in Grant Thornton, LLC, B-416733, Nov. 29, 2018,
2018 CPD T 411, sustaining Grant Thornton's protest of the terms of request for
quotations (RFQ) No. HQ003418R0198, which was issued by DOD, for auditing support
services. The protester argued that the RFQ, which the agency issued pursuant to the
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation
subpart 8.4, was unduly restrictive of competition because it required vendors to quote
labor categories that align[ed] precisely with the minimum years of experience in the
RFQ.

We sustained the protest finding that the solicitation was unduly restrictive of
competition because it required vendors' FSS contracts to align precisely with the
solicitation's minimum number of years of experience for identified labor categories.
Specifically, we agreed with Grant Thornton, and input provided by the General
Services Administration (GSA) (which our Office invited to participate in the protest
pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.3(j)), that a vendor with a FSS labor category to provide
personnel with a minimum of 10 years of experience, 10+ years of experience, or at
least 10 years of experience, was within the scope of the RFQ's requirement for
12 years of experience. In this regard, we concluded that the terms of such a FSS labor