In its proposal, AMSEA submitted commitment letters for six key personnel and based on the commitments and other factors was awarded a contract.  Following award five of the six employees listed on the proposal declined to accept their engineer assignments and PCS filed a protest alleging the proposal was a “misrepresentation” and “bait and switch” arrangement having a material impact on the award.  In testimony AMSEA admitted it had not discussed the location of the positions nor salary and benefits and the Comp. Gen. ruled that whatever agreement it had with the engineers, it fell short of the commitment required in the solicitation stating “an agreement to work for a successor offeror, without reaching an agreement on salary and benefits, is not a binding commitment.”  The Comp. Gen. also ruled the misrepresentation had a material effect on the award since the competition between AMSEA and PCS was close.  However, the Comp. Gen. rejected the bait and switch claim ruling a protester must show, among other things, that is was “foreseeable” the individuals named in the proposal would not be available to perform (Patriot Contract Services, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-294777.3).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}