B-296860.3, Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.--Costs, December 27, 2005

B-296860.3 Dec 27, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing an initial and a supplemental protest challenging the award of a contract to Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00173-04-R-LS02, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, for technical and engineering support services. Because the agency has agreed to pay the costs associated with one of the bases of protest, which our Office's attorney identified as clearly meritorious in the context of an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference, the issue for our Office is whether the protester's reimbursement should be limited to that single issue. We deny the request. View Decision B-296860.3, Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.--Costs, December 27, 2005 Decision Matter of: Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.--Costs File: B-296860.3 Date: December 27, 2005 Anne B. Perry, Esq., and Charmaine A. Howson, Esq., Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, for the protester. Charles G. Steenbuck, Esq., and Greggory L. Edefsen, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where Government Accountability Office (GAO) attorney, in conducting outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution (ADR), advised parties that protest issue related to organizational conflict of interest would likely be sustained (which led agency to take corrective action that rendered entire protest academic), but GAO attorney did not address other, separate issues raised by protest, GAO does not recommend reimbursement of costs associated with the unresolved issues, which were severable from the organizational conflict of interest issue addressed during ADR. DECISION Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing an initial and a supplemental protest challenging the award of a contract to Assurance Technology Corporation (ATC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00173-04-R-LS02, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Research Laboratory, for technical and engineering support services. Because the agency has agreed to pay the costs associated with one of the bases of protest, which our Office's attorney identified as clearly meritorious in the context of an –outcome prediction— alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference, the issue for our Office is whether the protester's reimbursement should be limited to that single issue. We deny the request. Honeywell filed a timely protest with our Office challenging the Navy's award of the technical and engineering support services contract to ATC. In its protest, Honeywell raised numerous challenges to the agency's award decision including: (1) ATC had material organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) that ATC failed to disclose and the Navy failed to identify or evaluate; (2) the Navy failed to properly evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors; (3) the Navy's price realism analysis was unreasonable; and (4) as a consequence of these errors, the Navy's price/technical tradeoff was flawed. With regard to the OCI concerns, Honeywell raised two issues stemming from ATC's performance of a separate Navy space systems development department (SSDD) contract, No. N00173'01'C'2006. First, Honeywell asserted that ATC had obtained non-public proprietary cost and technical data in connection with Honeywell's performance as the incumbent contractor for the technical and engineering support services contract, which provided ATC with an unfair competitive advantage in the procurement at issue. According to Honeywell, ATC learned this information as a result of ATC's program management activities under the SSDD contract. Second, Honeywell maintained that in performing the SSDD contract, ATC would be required to supervise a significant portion of its own work under the technical and engineering support services contract, thus creating an –impaired objectivity— conflict of interest. Protest at 13. With regard to the second OCI issue, Honeywell argued that the Navy's technical and price evaluation were compromised because the Navy did not consider the impact associated with mitigating ATC's conflict. Id. at 17. After receipt of the agency report, Honeywell filed its comments, in which it continued to argue the issues raised in its initial protest and also raised a supplemental basis of protest--that the Navy had improperly conducted pre-award discussions only with ATC. At the request of our Office, the agency filed a supplemental agency report addressing the supplemental protest issue as well as the arguments raised in Honeywell's comments.