The protester said the award was tainted by a conflict. Some evaluators had attended a symposium with the awardee’s subcontractor. The protester contended the symposium was “extravagant,” with bourbon tours, top-notch entertainment, and high-end gifts. The protester argued this extravagance influenced the award decision. But GAO found the alleged conflict was based on conjecture. The agency officials who were at the symposium didn’t attend the cool events, like the bourbon tour. What’s more, there was no evidence these officials discussed the procurement with anyone at the symposium.
Horizon Strategies, LLC, GAO B-419419.5, B-419419.6
Background
The Army issued an RFP seeking soldier transition support. Following an initial award, protests, corrective action, and a reevaluation, the Army awarded the contract to SilverStar Consulting. Horizon Strategies protested.
Analysis
Double-Counted Strengths
The Army assessed strength to SilverStar under the RFP’s staffing subfactor and another strength under the management subfactor. Both strengths related to SilverStar’s ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel. Horizon contended these strengths were indistinguishable, and that the Army double-counted what should have been one strength.
GAO didn’t think the strengths were duplicative. The strength under the staffing subfactor was specific to the retention of staff in hard-to-fill in areas. The strength for the management subfactor was for ensuring minimal interruption of services at hard-to-fill locations overseas. The Army reasonably assessed distinct strengths for different features of SilverStar’s proposal.
Outstanding Rating
The Army assigned a good rating to Horizon’s technical proposal. Horizon claimed it had multiple strengths and no weaknesses, so it should’ve received an outstanding rating. GAO disagreed. The RFP did not require the agency to assign an outstanding rating just because a proposal had strengths. While Horizon’s proposal had merit and presented low risk, the Army didn’t err in finding it merely good.
Past Performance
Horizon said the Army misevaluated SilverStar’s past performance. Horizon alleged the Army didn’t account for SilverStar’s lack of performance as a prime contractor. SilverStar planned to rely on its subcontractor, Inverness. But, Horizon argued, the Army hadn’t reasonably evaluated the quality of Inverness’s past performance.
GAO didn’t find the argument compelling. The RFP explicitly provided for consideration of subcontractor performance. Thus, the Army properly considered Inverness’s past performance. Also, while Inverness had some performance issues on one past contract, the evaluators and the SSA considered those issues. They reasonably determined he positive trend in Inverness’s performance mitigated those issues.
Conflict of Interest
Horizon contended the Army failed to properly investigate an apparent conflict of interest. Horizon asserted the SSA and evaluators had attended an Inverness-sponsored event while evaluating proposals. The event featured a bourbon tour, top-notch entertainment, and extravagant gifts (i.e., a truck). Horizon argued that the extravagance may have improperly influenced the award decision.
GAOI didn’t agree. As an initial matter, the event was hosted by the Army, not by Inverness. The evaluators at the symposium didn’t actually attend any of the cool events, like the bourbon tour or the truck award presentation. What’s more, there was no evidence the evaluators discussed the procurement with anyone at the event, or that Inverness had obtained any competitively useful information. There’s nothing inherently improper with agency employees attending a government-sponsored symposium.
Horizon is represented by Aron C. Beezley, Patrick R. Quigley, Sarah S. Osborne, Lisa A. Markman, Nathaniel J. Greeson, and Gabrielle A. Sprio of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. The intervenor, SilverStar, is represented by Craig A. Holman, Thomas A. Pettit, and Julia A. Swafford of Arnold Porter Kay Scholer LLP. The agency is represented by Andrew J. Smith, Lieutenant Colonel Seth B. Ritzman, Captain Dmitrius R. McGruder, and Captain Natalie W. McKiernan of the Army. GAO attorneys Paula A. Williams and Evan D. Wesser participated in the decision.
–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
