The protester claimed the award was tainted by a conflict, that the agency misevaluated experience, and that the evaluation wasn’t properly documented. GAO denied the protest:
- OCI – The agency properly waived the conflict.
- Experience – The protester contended the agency was required to communicate with points of contact on prior contracts. But no such duty to communicate exists.
- Documentation – The protester alleged the agency should’ve recorded offerors’ oral presentations. GAO said the offerors’ slides and the evaluators’ notes provided sufficient documentation.
Accenture Federal Services, LLC, GAO B-421134.2 et al.
Background
Accenture Federal Services provided recruitment services under a contract with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Deloitte Consulting provided payroll services to TSA under another contract. TSA issued an RFP that consolidated the recruiting and payroll services into one human capital contract.
Accenture and Deloitte both submitted proposals for consolidated contract. TSA awarded the contract to Deloitte. Accenture protested.
Analysis
OCI
Accenture contended Deloitte had a conflict from its performance of the predecessor payroll contract. Accenture argued TSA had not properly considered Deloitte’s conflict.
But GAO found the argument was not viable. After Accenture filed the protest, TSA executed an OCI waiver. GAO’s review of an OCI is limited to considering whether the waiver complies with the FAR. Here, the waiver complied—it was in writing, set forth the extent of the conflict, and was approved by the appropriate agency official. GAO’s hands were tied.
Corporate Experience
Under the RFP’s experience factor, offerors to provide a point of contact for their prior contracts. Accenture argued this requirement obligated TSA to communicate with the points of contact. TSA hadn’t spoken with the points of contact. So Accenture argued TSA hadn’t evaluated experience in accordance with the solicitation.
GAO didn’t agree. While the solicitation asked for points on contract, that didn’t mean TSA had to reach out to the points of contact. The points of contact were required in case the agency questioned the accuracy of offerors’ representations. Here, the agency reasonably relied on the offerors’ representation. Communication with the points of contact was unnecessary
Documentation of Oral Presentations
Both offerors made oral presentations as part of their proposals. TSA did not record the presentations. Accenture argued that without a record, the evaluation lacked proper documentation.
GAO rejected the argument. TSA had the offerors’ slide presentations and more than 60 pages of notes taken during the presentations. These materials were sufficient to documentation.
Accenture is represented by Amy L. O’Sullivan, Olivia L. Lynch, Cherie J. Owen, James G. Peyster, and Issac D. Schabes of Crowell & Moring LLP. The intervenor, Deloitte, is represented by David S. Cohen, John J. O’Brien, and Jason M. Moy of Cordatis LLP. The agency is represented by Kimberly M. Shackelford, Christopher J. Curry, Michael Kiffney, and Christopher J. Reames of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
