Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
Moonlighting Mayhem: When an Agency Employee Also Works for the Awardee • “Show Your Math!” Why Did OHA Reject the Protester’s Affiliation Arguments? • May 2025 Bid Protest Sustain of the Month: In a Sustain-less Month, a Masterclass in How Not to Protest • National Security Concerns Can Bar SBIR Awards: Key Takeaways from Kayhan Space Corp. v. United States • GAO Sustains Protest Due to Agency’s Inadequate Documentation and Unequal Evaluation of Offerors

Moonlighting Mayhem: When an Agency Employee Also Works for the Awardee

The protester challenged the issuance of a blanket purchase agreement for building services, arguing that the awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage and suffered from conflicts of interest because it employed a part-time worker who also held a full-time GSA position at the very building where the work would be performed. GAO denied the protest, finding that the agency conducted a reasonable investigation and that any potential conflicts were adequately mitigated through recusal.

South Dade Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., GAO, B-424292

  • Background - The General Services Administration issued a request for quotations under FAR subpart 8.4 procedures for facilities engineering, operations and maintenance, pest control, and elevator maintenance services at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC. The solicitation contemplated a best-value tradeoff considering management plan, prior experience, past performance, socioeconomic designation, and price. After receiving eight quotations, the agency awarded the BPA to the awardee, despite the protester's higher technical rating, because the protester's price was roughly $18.6 million higher. The protester filed this protest after learning that an awardee employee also worked for GSA as a building manager at the very facility at issue.
  • Unfair Competitive Advantage - The protester argued the dual-employed individual had access to "anything and everything" about RRBITC operations and could have funneled non-public, competitively useful information to the awardee. GAO denied this ground, finding the contracting officer conducted a meaningful investigation that revealed the individual was recused from the procurement before planning even began, was not on the evaluation panel, and had no access to source selection materials. The awardee confirmed that the individual played no role in quotation preparation. GAO emphasized that the protester offered only innuendo, failing to identify any specific non-public information that was actually accessed or shared.
  • Impaired Objectivity OCI - The protester contended that allowing the dual-employed individual to evaluate the awardee's contract performance as a GSA building manager created an unmitigable conflict, and that the very existence of a recusal letter proved a conflict existed. GAO disagreed, explaining that recusals are not per se evidence of unmitigable conflicts and are often employed out of caution. The record showed the individual signed recusal letters disqualifying themselves from all matters involving the awardee, directly or indirectly. GAO noted this scenario was unusual because impaired objectivity typically focuses on the contractor's relationship to the evaluated work, not a government employee's outside employment. Nevertheless, the recusal adequately addressed the protester's core concern.
  • Best-Value Tradeoff Decision - The protester argued the agency improperly converted the procurement from a best-value tradeoff to a lowest-priced technically acceptable competition by selecting the lower-rated, lower-priced quotation, despite the solicitation stating that non-price factors were collectively more important than price. GAO denied this ground, explaining that even when a solicitation emphasizes technical merit over price, an agency may properly select a lower-rated, lower-priced quotation when it reasonably concludes the price premium is not justified by the technical benefits. The source selection authority specifically analyzed the protester's technical advantages and determined they did not warrant the 11.8 percent price premium.

The protester is represented by Shane J. McCall, Nicole D. Pottroff, John L. Holtz, Gregory P. Weber, and Annie E. Birney of Koprince Law, LLC. The intervenor, AAA Complete Building Services, Inc., is represented by Kara M. Sacilotto and Nicholas T. Iliff of Wiley Rein LLP. The government is represented by Tara N. Mitchell of the General Services Administration. GAO attorneys Raymond Richards and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.