The protester alleged that through its previous work with the agency, the awardee had access to source-selection information, and that this gave rise to an unequal access OCI. GAO found that while the awardee’s subcontractor had worked for the agency, it had not had access to any source selection information. While the subcontractor undoubtedly had knowledge about the program that helped it in crafting its solicitation, this did not amount to an unequal access OCI. Rather, this was a normal incumbent advantage, and an agency is not required to equalize a competition to compensate for the incumbent advantage.
EM Key Solutions, Inc., GAO B-420221, B-420221.2
Background
The Department of Veterans Affairs issued an RFQ seeking verification and validation services for the agency’s Financial Management Business Transformation Program. The VA received proposals from five vendors, including EM Key Solutions and InnoVet Health, LLC. The VA awarded the contract to InnoVet, finding its superior technical proposal was worth the price premium. EM protested.
Legal Analysis
- No Disparate Evaluation – EM contended the VA disparately evaluated quotations when it gave InnoVet a significant strength for its understanding of the agency’s financial system but didn’t give a similar strength to EM. GAO found that EM didn’t deserve a similar strength. While both offerors had knowledge of the system. InnoVet had demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding while EM had only provided a generic description of items without demonstrating specific understanding.
- Past Performance Evaluation was Thorough – EM complained that the VA performed a “mechanical” evaluation of past performance, based simply on the number references and quality assessments received. GAO, however, found that the VA had looked beyond the assessments.
- Alleged OCI Was Really Just a Natural Incumbent Advantage – EM claimed that InnoVet had been substantially involved in the agency’s financial management program, that this gave the company access to source-selection information, and that the VA had failed to properly investigate an apparent organizational conflict of interest. GAO noted that InnoVet’s subcontractor had worked on the financial program in the past by providing subject matter expertise on software projects. In this position, however, the subcontractor had not had access to source-selection information. While the company had undoubtedly obtained information from its prior work that helped it in this procurement, the government is not required to equalize competition to compensate for an incumbent advantage.
EM is represented by Todd R. Overman, Sylvia Yi, and Roee Talmore of Bass Berry & Sims, PLC. The intervenor, InnoVet, is represented by Michelle Litteken, Catherin Kroll, and Andrew Mohr of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP. The agency is represented by Frank V. DiNicola, Ronald J. Bakcy, and Mary G. Courtney of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
GAO attorneys Hannah G. Barnes and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.
