Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-286714.3, August 20, 2001

B-286714.3 Aug 20, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest against agency's proposed corrective action regarding organizational conflicts of interest addressed in prior decision is denied. Where agency's proposed actions are a reasonable means for mitigating prior awardee's potential competitive advantage and potential impaired objectivity. JCWSI maintains that the proposed correction action is inadequate to address the OCIs. BACKGROUND This acquisition (conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76) was for a broad array of services to be performed at Fort Benning. That it exclude IT from the acquisition if it determined that there were no feasible corrective measures. The agency advised our Office that it will terminate IT's contract. View Decision Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-286714.3, August 20, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. (JCWSI) protests the Department of the Army's proposed corrective action in response to our decision in Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., B-286714.2, Feb. 13, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 20. In that decision, we found that the awardee, IT Corporation, had improper organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT60-99-R-0013, issued to acquire various services at Fort Benning, Georgia. JCWSI maintains that the proposed correction action is inadequate to address the OCIs. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This acquisition (conducted under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76) was for a broad array of services to be performed at Fort Benning. The Army identified IT as the apparent successful offeror under the solicitation, and thus compared that firm's proposal to the in-house proposal under the A-76 cost comparison procedures. As a result of this comparison, the agency determined that it would be less expensive to contract with IT for these services than to perform them in-house; it thus awarded IT a contract. JCWSI protested the agency's selection decision, maintaining that IT, by virtue of the activities of one of its subcontractors (Innovative Logistics Corporation (INNOLOG)), had an impermissible OCI. Specifically, JCWSI argued that INNOLOG's activities in performing another contract (the integrated sustainment maintenance (ISM) contract) unfairly gave the IT team access to information (the executive management information system (EMIS) database) and expertise (through INNOLOG's analysts performing the ISM contract) that resulted in an impermissible competitive advantage. JCWSI also contended that INNOLOG's contractual responsibilities under the ISM contract conflicted with the IT team's performance of the Fort Benning services contract, resulting in an "impaired objectivity" type of OCI. We sustained the protest, agreeing that the IT team had both unfair competitive advantage and impaired objectivity OCIs. We recommended that the Army review the OCIs and consider whether steps could be taken to avoid, neutralize or mitigate them, and that it exclude IT from the acquisition if it determined that there were no feasible corrective measures. In response to our decision, the agency advised our Office that it will terminate IT's contract; it has required IT to terminate its teaming relationship with INNOLOG for the Fort Benning procurement; /1/ it will make available to IT and JCWSI both the contents of the EMIS database and agency personnel familiar with the database (as well as the ISM contract) to assist the offerors in using and interpreting the database contents; and it will then reopen the acquisition to allow the offerors an opportunity to submit proposal revisions in those areas of their offers that relate to the data contained in the EMIS database, and select a proposal for use in the A-76 public/private cost comparison. The agency then will conduct a new cost comparison. JCWSI challenges the agency's proposed actions on several grounds. /2/ In addressing possible OCIs, agencies are required to exercise common sense, good judgment and sound discretion. Federal Acquisition Regulation Sec. 9.505. The agency's proposed actions meet this standard. DISCLOSING EMIS DATA JCWSI contends that providing the EMIS data is insufficient to put JCWSI on an equal footing with IT, since it lacks access to the expertise of the INNOLOG ISM contract analysts. JCWSI asserts that IT's relationship with INNOLOG provided an opportunity for the expertise of the ISM analysts to "percolate" through the IT organization. JCWSI also asserts that, even with the EMIS information, it still would not have other ISM contract data that was available to IT through the ISM analysts. This argument does not provide a basis for questioning the proposed mitigation approach.