Chaedrol GAO Protest Log 20240919: Maxim Healthcare

Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc. (B-422389.2)

You should care.

GAO's decisions can shape eligibility standards and clarify interpretations of solicitation requirements, particularly in the context of SAM registration. This case highlights the importance of clear communication from agencies regarding eligibility criteria.

Category: Proposal requirement (SAM registration)

Date: August 21, 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422389.2

The protester, Maxim Healthcare Staffing Services, Inc., contested its exclusion from task-order-award eligibility, because of a temporary lapse in its System for Award Management (SAM) registration. GAO found that the solicitation did not include the required FAR provision, 52.204-7, which would have informed offerors of the requirement for an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission. GAO noted that the absence of clear language regarding ineligibility due to registration status rendered the agency's rejection of Maxim's proposal unreasonable. Additionally, the GAO emphasized that while the FAR requires SAM registration, the specific solicitation did not communicate the consequences of a lapse effectively.

The protest was sustained because the solicitation did not justify the exclusion of Maxim's proposal, and GAO concluded that the agency failed to follow its own guidelines. The important takeaway from this case is the critical need for agencies to explicitly state eligibility criteria in solicitations to avoid ambiguity and ensure fair competition.

Digest

Protest that agency unreasonably found the protester was ineligible for task order award due to a temporary lapse in its System for Award Management (SAM) registration is sustained where the solicitation did not include Federal Acquisition Regulation provision 52.204-7 or otherwise notify offerors that they would be ineligible for award if their SAM registration was not active at the time of proposal submission.