Protest challenging the agency’s consideration of the protester’s potential organizational conflict of interest is denied, where the agency evaluators noted the potential conflict, but did not give it any consideration when assigning a technical rating and where the protester was not the apparent awardee, and therefore the agency did not investigate to determine if an actual conflict existed.
Armedia LLC protested the Defense Intelligence Agency’s award of a contract for digital forensics support services to Vexterra Group, alleging that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an improper source selection decision.
First, Armedia challenged the agency’s assignment of weaknesses and significant weaknesses to its technical proposal, alleging that the ratings are themselves contradictory, not consistent with the strengths assigned to its proposal, and unfounded based on the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. Armedia also challenged the agency’s evaluation of Vexterra’s past performance, alleging that the awardee should have been assigned limited or no confidence rating because it had only one relevant contract and failed to meet the requirement for at least one year of performance. Lastly, the protester claimed that the agency’s evaluation of its technical expertise and management approach was improperly influenced by a perceived impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest, which the agency did not allow the protester to address.
In response, DIA argued that it reasonably identified both strengths and weaknesses in the protester’s proposal which did not conflict but were offsetting for the overall technically acceptable rating. The agency also argued that it properly evaluated Vexterra’s past performance and reasonably assigned a satisfactory confidence level for the experience of the awardee and its subcontractors, and the high ratings and favorable comments included in the past performance questionnaires.
Finally, the agency maintained that because the protester was not the apparent successful offeror, it did not determine whether a potential or actual conflict existed and was not required to provide the protester with an opportunity to address the OCI concerns. The agency also argued that the potential OCI was not considered during its evaluation of the protester’s technical proposal or for the source selection decision.
GAO denied the protest. First, GAO found the technical evaluation was reasonable, as the agency assigned strengths to Armedia’s proposal for an exceptional understanding and knowledge of the requirements and a technically feasible and thorough approach, but also weaknesses because the protester did not identify a specific approach for performing certain SOW task areas. GAO also found reasonable the agency’s conclusion that the protester failed to indicate how its teaming partners would be used during performance.
GAO also determined that the agency reasonably evaluated Vexterra’s contract references for relevancy and quality of performance before concluding that the awardee’s past performance proposal provided satisfactory confidence. The agency’s reliance upon the past performance of Vexterra’s subcontractors was also deemed reasonable since the solicitation stated that performance as either a prime or subcontractor would be evaluated. With regard to the OCI allegation, GAO found that while the potential OCI was identified, it was not apparent that it was considered during the technical evaluation or source selection decision.
Armedia LLC is represented by William M. Weisberg of the Law Offices of William Weisberg, PLLC. Vexterra Group is represented by Samuel B. Knowles and Ethan M. Brown of DLA Piper LLP-US. The government is represented by Gregory A. Moritz, Lieutenant Colonel Gregory J. Fike, Max D. Houtz, Jessica A. Easton, and Douglas Francken, Defense Intelligence Agency. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
