Protest alleging that awardee had OCI’s and challenging the evaluation of proposals is denied. The protester alleged the awardee had impaired objectivity and unequal access OCIs. The court found that the protester’s arguments amounted to disagreement with an approved mitigation plan. The protester alleged the agency improperly coached the awardee with discussions, but the court saw no evidence of that. The protester contended the agency disparately evaluated proposals, but again the court found that the protester simply disagreed with the agency’s evaluation conclusions.
Background
DoD’s Missile Defense Agency (MDA) issued a solicitation seeking support of the agency’s testing operations. After reviewing proposals, MDA awarded the contract to DTechLogic, LLC. An unsuccessful offeror, Trident Technologies, filed a GAO protest alleging that DTechLogic had organizational conflicts of interest. In response to the protest, MDA took corrective action to investigate the alleged conflict and revisit the evaluation and award decision.
MDA determined that DTechLogic had some potential conflicts. DTechLogic provided a mitigation plan and removed a subcontractor from its team. Following additional rounds of discussions, MDA once again selected DTechLogic for award. Trident then filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims.
Legal Analysis
- No Impaired Objectivity OCI – DTechLogic was a joint venture. Trident alleged that each member of the joint venture had an impaired objectivity OCI related to work they were performing on another contract as subcontractors. Trident contended that the companies’ work on this other contracts would place them in a position where they were evaluating their own work. But the court reasoned that Trident’s allegations appeared to simply rehash the OCI’s the agency had already reviewed and established a plan to mitigate. Trident had not convinced the court the mitigation plan was unacceptable. The arguments amounted to disagreement. The court was not inclined to question the agency’s discretion.
- No Unequal Access OCI – Trident further alleged that DTechLogic’s members had access to non-public, competitively-useful information from their work on another contact. The court, however, determined that Trident’s allegations did not rise to the level of hard facts needed to establish an OCI. This again amounted to disagreement with the contracting officer’s view about potential OCIs’.
- MDA Was Not Required to Disqualify DTechLogic – Trident asserted that MDA should have disqualified DTechLogic for failing to disclose OCIs. But the court reasoned that the FAR provides agencies with considerable discretion in identifying and mitigating OCIs. MDA’s decision to not disqualify DTechLogic was within its discretion.
- MDA Didn’t Engage In Unequal Discussions – Trident alleged MDA coached DTechLogic through discussions, suggesting specific revisions to its proposal. The court saw no evidence of coaching. The agency merely tailored its discussions to the offerors to the areas of their proposal that required correction.
- No Evidence of Disparate Treatment – Trident complained that MDA relied on unfair, irrational distinctions between proposals. The court found that while these allegations were couched as a claim of disparate treatment, Trident’s arguments simply amounted to disagreement with the agency’s conclusions. It was apparent from the record that MDA considered all aspects of the proposals and adequately documented the reasoning for its decisions.
Trident is represented by Joseph D. West, Lindsay M. Paulin, Chelsea Knudson, Nathaniel J. Tisa, and Michael M. Ulmer of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The intervenor DTechLogic, is represented by Roderic G. Steakley and Benjamin R. Little. The government is represented by Igor Helman, Brian M. Boynton, Patrciia M. McCarthy, and L. Misha Preheim of the Department of Justice as well as by Major Seth Ritzman, James D. Stephens, and Brian Chapuran of the Missile Defense Agency.
