B-299888, Accent Service Company, Inc., September 14, 2007

B-299888 Sep 14, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Accent Service Company, Inc., a small business, protests the actions of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, during a procurement under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-06-R-1335 for janitorial services at the Naval Support Activity in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Accent objects that its confidential proprietary information was disclosed to prospective competitors, in a breach of procurement integrity, and that the Navy has failed to take sufficient remedial measures. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299888, Accent Service Company, Inc., September 14, 2007 Decision Matter of: Accent Service Company, Inc. File: B-299888 Date: September 14, 2007 Dan Yasui, for the protester. Allison M. Grace, Esq., and Tracy M. Humphrey, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is denied where agency properly concluded that agency employee had not violated procurement integrity provisions by escorting representatives of a potential competitor on a site visit, which included a brief stop at the office of the protester's on-site manager, and a limited disclosure to the visitors about the firm's incumbent contract staffing. DECISION Accent Service Company, Inc., a small business, protests the actions of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Department of the Navy, during a procurement under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-06-R-1335 for janitorial services at the Naval Support Activity in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Accent objects that its confidential proprietary information was disclosed to prospective competitors, in a breach of procurement integrity, and that the Navy has failed to take sufficient remedial measures. We deny the protest. The Navy issued the RFP on May 9, 2007, as a competitive 8(a) set-aside, seeking proposals to provide janitorial services under a combination firm-fixed and indefinite-quantity contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. RFP at 44, 56. Accent is the incumbent contractor. The protest alleges that the Navy caused Accent to disclose proprietary information about its approach to performing the incumbent contract, which Accent argues will be useful to its competitors in the pending competition. Specifically, Accent alleges that on June 4, the Navy's contract surveillance representative (CSR) brought two individuals to the office of Accent's on-site manager. Accent alleges that the CSR did not identify the two visitors as potential competitors, and that the group –engaged . . . [Accent's] Manager in a discussion surrounding how the current contract was being performed.— Ultimately the discussion included the fact that Accent employed workers in two shifts, and –an approximate manning structure for each shift.— Altogether, the discussion lasted less than 15 minutes. Protest at 2. Accent complains that only the following day did the firm learn from the CSR that the visitors were representatives of a potential competitor. Id. The Navy's account of these events is very similar, but differs in a few material areas. The Navy's account is also bolstered by a declaration from the CSR. The Navy admits that on June 4, the CSR brought two representatives of a potential competitor to see various areas, including the on-site manager's office space, but asserts that Accent's manager greeted the visitors and introduced herself, and the visitors did likewise--with both stating their names and company affiliation. The Navy states that when the visitors left the office after about 2 minutes, Accent's manager followed them out of her office, and –a discussion of the current contract's manning structure and shifts ensued— for less than 15 minutes. Agency Report (AR), at 3. On June 5, Accent complained to the Navy in writing that this (and at least two other alleged disclosures) constituted violations of procurement integrity. Protest at 2. Upon receipt of Accent's complaint, the contracting officer (CO) for this procurement, as well as a second CO and Navy legal counsel, reviewed the allegations. After concluding that no violation of procurement integrity had occurred, the CO advised Accent, by letter dated June 12, –that the competitive integrity of the procurement process has not been compromised and that the information exchanged will not provide any advantage— to any competitor. AR, Tab 5, Letter from CO to Accent, June 12, 2007, at 1. Accent's protest rests on three arguments: (1) the CSR violated procurement integrity by escorting a competitor to an on-site meeting with Accent's manager on June 4; (2) the on-site visit provided to a single competitor showed favoritism; and (3) the on-site visit (and resulting exchange of information about staffing) provided –one potential offeror .