The awardee had been acquired around the time it submitted its proposal. The protester contended the agency had not meaningfully considered the impact of this transaction. In the protester’s view, the acquisition made the awardee ineligible. But GAO wasn’t convinced. The acquiring company had purchased all of the awardee’s assets and resources. Thus, regardless of the transaction, there had been no change in the awardee’s corporate status. The entity that submitted the proposal was the same entity that would perform. The protester had not shown the awardee could no longer implement its proposed approach.
Deloitte Consulting, LLP; ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., GAO B-420137.7 et al.
Background
The Defense Health Agency (DHA) issued an RFQ to holders of a Special Item Federal Supply Schedule. The RFQ sought a contractor to integrate DHA’s enterprise services environment. DHA received quotations from, among others, Deloitte Consulting, ManTech Advanced Systems International, and Perspecta Enterprise Solutions. Following an initial award, protests, and corrective action, DHA awarded the contract to Perspecta. Deloitte and ManTech filed protests with GAO.
Analysis
The protesters alleged the award was tainted by a conflict of interest. The also challenged weaknesses assessed to their oral presentations. GAO rejected those arguments.
Man Tech also raised a corporate transactions issue. Around the time DHA issued the RFQ, Perspecta had been acquired by another company, Peraton. ManTech alleged that DHA had failed to meaningfully evaluate the impact of this transaction. ManTech maintained that in light of this transaction, Perspecta was no longer the same entity and could no longer perform the technical approach it had proposed. ManTech also contended that unless Perspecta’s FSS contract was amended with a novation, Perspecta was ineligible for award.
GAO, however, found that the transaction was unlikely to have a significant impact on contract performance. Perspecta had disclosed the transaction in its initial proposal, so the agency knew about it. Additionally, Peraton had acquired all of Perspecta—all the assets and resources. There was no divestiture of assets and no change in the corporate status of any Perspecta subsidiary. Thus, the personnel and resources Perspecta had offered were still available. And ManTech had not shown that any Perspecta’s resources were unavailable or that Perspecta could not implement its planned approach.
Moreover, GAO found that the transaction had not rendered Perspecta ineligible for award. Perspecta’s FSS contract was still active in SAM. Perspecta did not intend for Peraton to become a successor in interest to the FSS contract; rather, Perspecta planned to change its name but leave all the rights and obligations of the FSS contract intact.
Deloitte is represented by David S. Cohen, John J. O’Brien, Jason Moy, and Rhina Cardenal of Cordatis LLP. ManTech is represented by Michael D. McGill, Mark D. Colley, Thomas A. Petit, and Michael T. Gwinn of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer. The intervenor, Perspecta, is represented by Kevin P. Connelly, Kelly E. Buroker, Jeffrey M. Lowry, and Tamara Droubi of Vedder Price PC. The agency is represented by Colby L. Sullins, Bradley E. Richards, and Kevin E. Bolin of the Defense Health Agency. GAO attorneys Charmaine S. Stevenson and Jonathan L. Kang participated in the preparation of the decision.
