LYNDHURST, N.J., Nov. 3, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- Scarinci Hollenbeck successfully represented AASKI Technology, Inc. ("AASKI") in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), preserving the Ocean-based defense contractor's award to provide professional support to the U.S. Army (the "Army"). URS Federal Services, Inc., represented by Washington D.C. - based Wiley Rein, protested the award, arguing the Army misevaluated its lower-cost proposal and applied unstated criterion when evaluating its proposed key personnel. On October 12, 2016, the GAO rejected URS's protest and upheld the award to AASKI. Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20161102/435403LOGOPhoto - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20161102/435404 RTEP Issued by the ArmyA Request for Task Execution Proposal (RTEP) was issued by the Army under the Rapid Response Third Generation (R2-3G) multiple award contract. The solicitation stated that an award would be made on a lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) basis. It also stated that the offerors would be evaluated on three factors: technical, cost, and cost control factors. The technical evaluation factor consisted of five subfactors, including key personnel. To satisfy the key personnel subfactor, offerors were required to submit resumes for 11 key personnel positions. The resumes needed to show that each proposed candidate met the criteria established by the R2-3G base labor categories and the Performance Work Statement. After evaluating the proposals, the Army awarded the contract to AASKI. The Army held that although URS' proposal was lower in cost, it failed to submit a suitable candidate for one of its 11 key personnel positions, namely the position of Senior Analyst for the Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) program. The Army found that URS's proposed candidate lacked EOD-specific training or experience. URS filed a bid protest with the GAO, arguing that EOD specific training or experience was not required under the terms of the solicitation. URS argued, in the alternative, that the Army unreasonably evaluated its candidate. They stated that certain key aspects of the candidate's training were ignored by the Army.