Protest alleging that agency failed to investigate OCI and unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied. The protester alleged that one of the awardee’s officers had obtained access to the protester’s confidential information while consulting for a third party on an acquisition. The protester argued that this gave rise to an unfair access OCI. But GAO found that an unfair access conflict only arises when a company obtains access to another’s information while working on a government contract. Here the unfair access did not involve the government but rather a disclosure between two private parties that GAO will not consider. The protester also objected to the agency’s evaluation under the solicitation’s technical and management factors. GAO, however, found that the protester’s objections amounted to disagreement with the agency’s conclusions.
The Army awarded a task order for intelligence support services to The Buffalo Group. The incumbent, Absolute Business Solutions, protested, alleging that the Army failed to properly investigate an unequal access OCI and misevaluated proposals.
Absolute contended that one of The Buffalo Group’s officers had previously served as consultant for a third party that performed due diligence for a possible acquisition of Absolute. As a result of this, the officer had access to Absolute’s confidential information and trade secrets. This access, Absolute argued, created an unmitigable conflict of interest.
GAO noted that an unequal access OCI exists when one party has access to nonpublic information as part of its performance on a government contract. Here, however, Absolute was not arguing that The Buffalo Group had access to information through its performance of a government contract. Rather, the officer had obtained the information through a private transaction. Where confidential information is obtained by one firm from another firm, it amounts to a private dispute that GAO will not consider in the absence of government involvement. The facts did not implicate the government. Thus, there was no OCI.
Next, Absolute challenged a weakness it received under the solicitation’s technical factor for overreliance on a senior engineer for quality assurance and quality control. Absolute argued that the senior engineer was only one position responsible for quality control, and that its proposal in no way suggested an overreliance.
But GAO found that Absolute’s proposal showed that it planned to use the senior engineer to execute the quality control requirements. The agency had reasonable concerns about the delegation of quality control to the senior engineer.
Next, Absolute contested a weakness it received under the management factor for “misunderstandings” related to security clearance requirements. The Army believed that Absolute failed to comprehend the staffing plan requirements because it had stated in its proposal that secret-level clearance would be required for a common access card. GAO found that Absolute had indeed stated that secret-level clearance would be required, which was inaccurate. What’s more Absolute’s proposal did not address how it planned to address staff that did not have security clearance. GAO found that the weakness was reasonable.
Absolute also objected to a weakness it received for under the staffing plan subfactor for failing to detail how off-site personnel would be managed at its facility. Absolute argued that the solicitation did not require offerors to specific how they would oversee employees at each location.
GAO disagreed, finding that the solicitation required offerors to show they could manage staff in agency facilities and contractor facilities, including telework locations. Thus, contrary to Absolute’s contentions, the solicitation required offerors to be able to manage staff at all locations, including offsite locations.
Finally, Absolute argued that the Army’s cost realism analysis was flawed because it failed to account for current market conditions. But GAO found that the agency performed a detailed realism analysis and determined that The Buffalo Group’s prices were realistic. Absolute’s objections were simply disagreements with the Army’s analysis.
Absolute is represented by Lee Dougherty of Effectus, PLLC. The intervenor, The Buffalo Group, is represented by David Edelstein, Laurence Schor, and Allison Geewax of Asmar, Schor & McKenna, PLLC. The agency is represented by Scott N. Flesch, Harry M. Parent, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Hernandez, and Captain Jeremy D. Burkhart of the Army. GAO attorneys Robert T. Wu and Peter H. Tran participated
