The protester challenged an award to a competitor whose price was dramatically lower, arguing that such a low price couldn't possibly support a technically acceptable proposal. The GAO dismissed most of the protest as speculative and denied a conflict of interest allegation, finding that a marriage between a contractor and government personnel doesn't create a conflict when the government employee has no involvement in the procurement.
AIX Tech, LLC, GAO, B-423417; B-423417.2; B-423417.3
- Background - The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) issued a request for proposals for strategic advisory support services under a multiple-award IDIQ contract. The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price task order to be awarded on a best-value tradeoff basis. The protester and awardee both received "High Confidence" ratings across all technical subfactors, but the awardee's price was $58.8 million compared to the protester's $107.5 million. After losing the competition, the protester filed multiple protest grounds challenging the evaluation and alleging a conflict of interest.
- Speculative Technical Challenges - The protester argued that the awardee's proposal couldn't have met all requirements at such a low price and must have proposed inadequate staffing or hours. GAO dismissed these arguments as speculative, noting that the protester's entire case rested on comparing the awardee's price to its own without any evidence about the actual contents of the awardee's proposal. The solicitation specifically encouraged offerors to propose unique approaches and staffing solutions, making price disparities unsurprising. GAO found that inferring technical inadequacy solely from a lower price, without any supporting evidence, amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.
- Price Evaluation - The protester claimed the agency failed to compare labor hours and categories during the price evaluation. GAO dismissed this argument as legally insufficient because the solicitation's price evaluation criteria only required assessment of price reasonableness and completeness, not a comparison of labor elements. Such comparisons were required under the technical evaluation factor, not the price factor.
- Best-Value Tradeoff - The protester alleged the agency abandoned the best-value process and made a lowest-price technically acceptable award. The GAO dismissed this claim because it relied entirely on the protester's other, previously dismissed arguments regarding the technical evaluation. The record showed that the agency considered technical merit alongside price, finding the awardee's proposal "slightly technically superior" and "significantly lower priced," thereby properly conducting the required tradeoff analysis.
- Conflict of Interest - The protester alleged a conflict existed because the CEO of the awardee's joint venture partner was married to a DISA contracting officer. After investigation, the agency found the contracting officer had no involvement in the procurement, never accessed procurement documents, worked in a different state and branch, and had previously disclosed the relationship with restrictions against participating in matters involving her spouse's company. GAO found the agency's investigation thorough and reasonable.
The protester is represented by Alexander J. Brittin of Brittin Law Group, PLLC, and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer of Ward & Berry, PLLC. The intervenor, Defense Solutions Group, LLC, is represented by J. Bradley Reaves, Paul Hawkins, and Jacob D. Noe of Reaves GovCon Group. The government is represented by Colleen Eagan, Maurice R. Griffithe, and Peter Kwon of Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Michelle Litteken, Glenn G. Wolcott, and April Y. Shields participated in the decision.