Protest alleging an organizational conflict of interest is denied. The agency used an outside company as an advisor in evaluating proposals. It turned out that company had teaming arrangements on other contracts with the awardee. The protester alleged that the relationship between the awardee and the other company created impaired objectivity and unequal access conflicts of interest. GAO, however, found that that protester was unable to establish an improper conflict. Employees of the outside company had not evaluated proposals and had not disclosed confidential information to anyone outside the procurement. What’s more, the protester had not presented any hard facts demonstrating a conflict.
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) issued a solicitation seeking support services for the Defense Industrial Base Network, a web-based tool used to streamline program activities, communicate cyber threat information, and facilitate defense industrial base collaboration in a secure environment. The solicitation provided that DISA would use a non-governmental company, VISTA Technology Services, as advisors to the evaluation team, and that VISTA would have access to proposals.
Solers, Inc., and Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), among others, submitted proposals. DISA selected BAH for award. Shortly after selecting BAH, the contracting officer performed an OCI investigation and concluded that no conflicts existed between BAH and VISTA. After learning of the award to BAH, Solers protested.
Solers alleged that the contracting officer failed to conduct a reasonable OCI investigation of the relationship between BAH and VISTA. Solers noted that on its website, VISTA identified BAH as a business partner. Solers argued that the relationship between BAH and VISTA prevented VISTA from giving impartial advice concerning the evaluation of proposals and thus gave rise to an impaired objectivity and unequal access to information conflicts.
GAO noted that the solicitation had required to VISTA to enter into non-disclosure agreements with each offeror that prohibited VISTA from disclosing or using any information obtained during the evaluation. GAO further noted that the contracting officer had questioned VISTA employees who stated that their access to proposal documents was limited to document review and administrative services, and that they had not evaluated proposals nor recommended any specific offeror for award. The contracting officer also communicated with executives at BAH and VISTA who confirmed that the companies had teaming agreements with each other on other contracts. Nevertheless, VISTA asserted that it would not receive any benefit from BAH’s contract with DISA.
Based on this, GAO found that the contracting officer had reasonably found no conflict. An impaired objectivity conflict exists when a company’s work under one government contract entails evaluating itself or a competitor. In this case, the record showed that VISTA employee had not evaluated proposals and, in any event, the company not in a position to benefit from an award to BAH. Solers had failed to identify any hard facts showing the potential existence of an impaired objectivity conflict.
An unequal access to information conflict arises when a firm has access to nonpublic information as part of its performance of a government contract that might provide the firm with a competitive advantage in a later procurement. Here, the record showed that VISTA personnel had limited access to proposals and, under penalty of perjury, denied sharing the information with anyone outside of the procurement. Once again, Solers had failed to present any hard facts demonstrating an unequal access OCI.
Solers next argued that BAH’s technical proposal exceeded the solicitation’s page limitation. The solicitation stated that the technical proposals were limited to 30 pages exclusive of cover page, tables, glossary, executive summary, resumes, and OCI mitigation plan. BAH’s technical proposal was 30 pages exclusive of the cover page, executive summary, and tables etc. But Solers argued that BAH’s four page executive summary was concerning because it contained tables that demonstrated BAH’s capabilities and strengths.
But GAO saw no problem with the executive summary. It contained nothing more than a description of BAH’s experience and capabilities as they related to the technical subfactors. The solicitation did not specify the information to be provided in an executive summary or limit the pages of the executive summary.
Solers also alleged that DISA credited BAH with strengths that were not warranted and then engaged in disparate treatment by not crediting Solers with similar strengths. Solers argued that BAH should not have received a strength for proposing an automated approach to the process of deploying releases. Solers contended that this approach simply met the but did not exceed the solicitation’s requirements. Moreover, Solers contended that it similarly proposed an automated approach.
GAO found that the Solers arguments concerning the benefit of BAH’s automated approach amounted to mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions. As to the disparate treatment argument, Solers’ proposal did not provide a comprehensive approach to automation. As the agency noted, Solers’ proposal focused on the trees while BAH’s focused on the forest. Due the differences in the approaches to automation, GAO declined to find disparate treatment.
Solers is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, Jeffrey M. Lowry, Kirsten W. Konar, and Tamara Droubi of Vedder Price PC. The intervenor, Booz Allen Hamilton, is represented by Gary J. Campbell, G. Matthew Koehl, and Lidiya Kurin of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP. The agency is represented by Colleen A. Egan and Vera A. Strebel of the Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Charmaine A. Stevenson and Laura Eyester participated in the preparation of the decision.
