Guidehouse withdraws OASIS protest after GSA makes change
By
Nick Wakeman
Guidehouse has withdrawn its protest regarding the OASIS just days after GSA made changes in the on-ramp solicitation for three pools in that contract.
Guidehouse has withdrawn its protest involving certain requirements in the OASIS on-ramp solicitation.
The company filed its protest Oct. 1 objecting to terms in the solicitation that they said were restrictive to competition. Details beyond that are sparse and the company has declined to comment.
But the Government Accountability Office docket says that the company withdrew the protest on Oct. 11, the day after proposals were due for the on ramp for Pools 1, 3 and 4.
Since GSA released the solicitation for the on-ramp it has put out four sets of amendments. It was after Amendment 3, released on Sept. 19 that Guidehouse filed its protest with GAO.
The last amendment, No. 4, was released Oct. 3 and I’m wondering if that may have addressed Guidehouse’s objections. That amendment makes changes to a part of the solicitation that GSA said it had “determined to be unduly restrictive of competition.” GSA made that determination after hearing complaints and comments from industry.
What GSA changed deals with what small business subcontracting plans could be considered in the bid evaluations. Apparently, GSA got complaints that work with small businesses that didn’t have Individual Subcontract Reports or Summary Subcontract Reports would not count as part of the bidder’s experience working with small businesses.
GSA said they realized this evaluation criteria would be “unfairly prejudicial to offerors whose relevant experience projects did not require incorporation of a subcontracting plan.”
But because this is an on-ramp, GSA can’t make wholesale changes to the solicitation. If GSA does make changes, then the solicitation becomes a new contract and not an on-ramp.
So GSA couldn’t delete the requirement but they could move it to another part of the solicitation, where the small business plans would be considered as part of the overall past performance evaluation.
Setting Guidehouse's protest aside, the change in Amendment 4 is worth noting and perhaps indicates that on-ramps aren’t as simple and straightforward as they might seem.