B-297022.4; B-297022.5, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, September 26, 2006

B-297022.4; B-297022.5, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, September 26, 2006 TITLE: B-297022.4; B-297022.5, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, September 26, 2006 BNUMBER: B-297022.4; B-297022.5 DATE: September 26, 2006 ********************************************************************************** B-297022.4; B-297022.5, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, September 26, 2006 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Alion Science & Technology Corporation File: B-297022.4; B-297022.5 Date: September 26, 2006 L. James D'Agostino, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey, Esq., Hannah Brody, Esq., and Andrew J. Belofsky, Esq., Greenberg Traurig, LLP; J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., Kier X. Bancroft, Esq., and Peter A. Riesen, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Jason N. Workmaster, Esq., and Kara M. Klaas, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for Advanced Engineering & Sciences, a division of ITT Industries, Inc., an intervenor. Flayo O. Kirk, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Where agency previously failed to meaningfully consider potential conflicts of interest created by awardee's contract performance of electromagnetic spectrum engineering services that could affect awardee's other spectrum-related interests, agency's corrective actions adequately remedied the prior procurement flaws, where the agency performed and documented its review of the spectrum-related products and services produced or provided by the awardee and the awardee's competitors, identified the awardee's customers of spectrum-related products and services, considered the impact that performance of the contract requirements may have on awardee's spectrum-related interests, and reasonably concluded that awardee's plan to perform conflicted portions of the contract requirements through use of "firewalled" subcontractors will adequately avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the potential conflicts of interest with minimal impact on performance quality. DECISION Alion Science & Technology Corporation protests various Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) actions taken in connection with the award of a contract to Advanced Engineering & Sciences (AES), a division of ITT Industries, Inc. (ITT), pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. HC1047-05-R-4009 to provide electromagnetic spectrum engineering services for DISA's Joint Spectrum Center (JSC).[1] Alion protests that the agency failed to reasonably consider the potential organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) created by ITT's performance of the contract requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In February 2005, DISA issued RFP No. HC1047-05-R-4009, seeking proposals to "provide the JSC with Electromagnetic Spectrum Engineering (ESE) services to facilitate improved mission effectiveness." RFP at 4.[2] The solicitation laid out a comprehensive list of the various activities the contractor will be required to perform.[3] Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical factors, past performance, and cost/price, and that award would be based on the proposal offering the "best overall value" to the government. RFP at 62. In April 2005, proposals were submitted by three offerors, including Alion and ITT.[4] Thereafter, discussions were conducted, proposal revisions submitted, and final proposals evaluated. In July 2005, ITT's proposal was selected for award. In August 2005, Alion filed its first protest, challenging the award to ITT on various bases, including that the agency failed to reasonably consider the OCIs created by ITT's performance of the contract requirements. Thereafter, the agency advised this Office that it was taking corrective action, to include an amendment of the RFP's OCI provisions[5] and a request that offerors submit revised OCI plans. We dismissed Alion's August 2005 protest pending completion of the agency's corrective actions. Thereafter, ITT and Alion submitted revised OCI plans,[6] and the agency performed an assessment regarding the potential for conflicts of interest to arise. With regard to contract performance by ITT, the agency concluded that there was a "maximum potential" for 15 percent of the contract requirements to create conflicts, but stated that it considered this estimate to be "high" and that actual OCIs were expected to be "significantly lower." Addendum to Source Selection Authority Decision, Sept. 22, 2005, at 2.