SysCom Inc. (B-423334)

You should not care.

Category: Staffing plan, timeliness, past performance, price

Date: 19 May 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/docket/b-423334.1

SysCom, Inc., protested the Air Force's rejection of its proposal under RFP No. FA481924R0009 for support services at multiple Air Force bases. SysCom argued that its technical proposal was unreasonably evaluated as unacceptable under the staffing plan subfactor and also challenged the agency's handling of its past performance and price. The protest primarily centered on whether SysCom’s proposal sufficiently described how it would maintain uninterrupted service during personnel absences for sickness, vacation, or other sustained leave—a specific requirement under the solicitation.

• Staffing plan: The Air Force found SysCom’s proposal unacceptable because it failed to explain in sufficient detail how the offeror would maintain services during short-term absences for illness or vacation, focusing instead on general continuity of operations (COOP) measures more relevant to disaster or long-term vacancies.
• Supplemental protest ground: GAO found that SysCom’s attempt to retroactively argue about the interpretation of the solicitation (“or” versus “and”) was untimely, as it was not raised in the initial protest and thus constituted piecemeal litigation (the prohibited practice of raising new protest grounds in subsequent filings that could have been raised in the initial protest).
• Failure to reach past performance and price: Because SysCom was found technically unacceptable, it was not an interested party to pursue arguments on past performance or price evaluation.

GAO denied the protest, holding the agency reasonably evaluated SysCom’s technical proposal as unacceptable, as it failed to provide the specific information the solicitation required. This outcome underscores the importance of fully and explicitly addressing all required elements in proposal sections—failure to do so will not be rescued by COOP language or generalities.

Digest

Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s technical proposal as unacceptable is denied where protester failed to provide information required by the solicitation.