chattanongzen | Shutterstock

Protest asserting myriad personal and professional conflicts of interest is denied. The protester alleged troubling ties between the agency and the awardee and a buffet of corporate skullduggery. The court found the personal and professional ties were not problematic because the individuals involved did not have access to or discuss the procurement. What’s more, the alleged bad acts were founded mostly on suspicion. The protester also challenged the agency’s technical and price evaluations, but the court found the agency had properly assessed proposals.

The Department of Health and Human Services awarded a contract for information technology services to Precise Software Solutions. A disappointed bidder, Harmonia Holdings Group, filed a protest with COFC. The case was twice remanded to the agency  to investigate conflicts of interest raised in Harmonia’s protest. HHS ultimately determined the procurement was untainted by conflicts. Thereafter, the parties moved for judgment on the administrative record.

Harmonia contended the procurement was blighted with conflicts and that HHS had failed to properly investigate. The court analyzed the alleged conflicts one-by-one.

First, Precise had hired a former HHS employee before the solicitation was issued. The contracting officer had investigated this alleged conflict and found that the former employee did not have access to any procurement information, nor had he communicated with any government employees about the procurement. The CO found no conflict. The court found the CO’s determination reasonable.

The next alleged conflict involved the relationship between two sisters, the Nguyen sisters. One sister worked for Precise, and the other worked for HHS. The CO conducted interviews and issued questionnaires to HHS employees about this relationship. The CO also reviewed the organizational structure and procedures at HHS for handling confidential information. The CO determined that the sister who worked for Precise did not have access to procurement information through her sister at HHS. The court found this conclusion reasonable.

But this was not the end of the allegations involving the Nguyen sisters. Precise’s former contracting manager contacted government officials, claiming that Precise had engaged in a bunch of no-no’s, including kickbacks, bribes, backdoor deals, and falsified declarations. What’s more, he claimed that Precise’s CEO shared living arrangement with the Nguyen sisters. HHS investigated the claims, but the former contracting officer, recanted, saying he made those allegations because he was angry about his termination from Precise. The CO thus found that the allegations did not amount to a conflict. The court agreed, finding no “hard facts” that established impropriety.

Aside from the former contracting manager, an author of Precise’s proposal implied to Harmonia that Precise had been coordinating with HHS while preparing its proposal. The CO investigated and did not find wrongdoing. Indeed, the CO found that the proposal author had made these allegations to Harmonia while seeking a job from Harmonia. Still, Harmonia contended, the investigation was deficient because the CO did not interview the author. But the court found the investigation reasonable and did not believe the CO’s “no conflict” finding was irrational.

As to the last alleged conflict, Harmonia claimed that given the improbable, “razor-thin” difference between the government’s estimate and Precise’s proposed labor hours, Precise must have had access to the IGCE. The court, however, found that this was just based on suspicion. There was no evidence the IGCE had been leaked to Precise.

Aside from the conflicts, Harmonia alleged it had been erroneously assigned a weakness on a Relevant Experience factor. HHS had found that Harmonia had not demonstrated enough experience with three key technologies. Harmonia claimed it had the relevant experience. In fact, it been given a strength under another factor because one its proposed personnel had experience in one of the required technologies.

The court, however, did not think the evaluation was flawed. HHS had not erred in awarding a strength for the experience of Harmonia’s personnel while simultaneously finding that Harmonia lacked experience. The agency could rationally find that the projects submitted by Harmonia failed to demonstrate relevant experience while also finding that the proposed employee’s experience warranted a strength under another evaluation factor.

Finally, Harmonia contended that HHS ignored the risks of a “staffing shift” in Precise’s proposal. Precise’s labor mix changed significantly for the option years of the contract. But the court found that the Precise’s staffing plan was not misleading. While Precise could have described the change in labor mix in better detail, HHS understood the change, and the CO did not act irrationally in declining to find a risk due to the change.

The court denied Harmonia’s motion for judgment on the administrative record but granted the government’s cross-motion.

Harmonia is represented by W. Brad English, J. Andrew Watson, III, Emily J. Chancey, J. Dale Gipson, and Michael W. Rich. The intervenor, Precise, is represented by William T. Welch. The government is represented by Cameron Cohick, Joseph H. Hunt, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Patricia M. McCarthy of the U.S. Department of Justice as well as Robyn A. Littman, Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.