B-310100, VRC, Inc., November 2, 2007

B-310100 Nov 02, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights VRC, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9133L-07-R-0031, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for personnel services in support of the Joint Combined State Strategic Plan. VRC alleges that the agency improperly disqualified it based on an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. View Decision B-310100, VRC, Inc., November 2, 2007 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: VRC, Inc. File: B-310100 Date: November 2, 2007 Bryant S. Banes, Esq., and Sean D. Forbes, Esq., Neel, Hooper & Banes, PC, for the protester. Capt. Marlin D. Paschal, Department of the Army, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that contracting agency should not have disqualified the protester because of an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where the agency reasonably found that an OCI existed based on the fact that an individual employed by a company with ownership ties to the protester was assigned to work in the agency's contracting office in connection with the procurement at issue. DECISION VRC, Inc. protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9133L-07-R-0031, issued by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) for personnel services in support of the Joint Combined State Strategic Plan. VRC alleges that the agency improperly disqualified it based on an organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND VRC is the incumbent contractor providing the services called for under the RFP. Military Personnel Services Corporation (MPSC) is a subcontractor to VRC on the incumbent contract and would continue in that role if VRC retained the contract. The sole owner of Taylor Consultants, Inc. (TCI) owns [DELETED] percent of the total issued and outstanding stock of MPSC. Protest at 2 n.1. TCI is a company currently under contract with NGB to provide personnel-related services and placed one of its employees in NGB's contracting division. That TCI employee was assigned to assist the contracting officer with this procurement and had direct access to source selection information unique to the procurement, including the source selection plan. Agency Report (AR), Memorandum of Law at 2. She also was expected to assist evaluators with evaluating competing offers.[1] On May 8, 2007, NGB issued the RFP, followed by two amendments, with a June 12 proposal due date. The RFP included the following language: Offerors are advised that employees of the firm identified below may serve as advisors to Source Selection Evaluation Board members in the source selection process. These individuals will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition and from rating proposals or recommending a selection. Firm: Taylor Consultants, Inc. Contact Name: [TCI employee] RFP sect. L. para. 1.4. According to the protester, companies interested in competing under this solicitation began contacting TCI, requesting that TCI execute non-disclosure agreements with those companies because a TCI employee would be working on this procurement. The protester asserts that TCI then attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact the contracting officer.[2] On June 4, the contracting officer's supervisor, the Chief of the Operational Contracting Division, recused himself from all matters that might affect MPSC or its related companies. Prior to his recusal, the Chief spoke with the owner of TCI and expressed his –opinion that [the relationship between TCI, MPSC, and VCR] should not lead to an OCI.— AR, Tab E, Decl. of Chief of Operational Contracting Division at 1. The protester asserts that the Chief –approved TCI's measures designed to mitigate any perceived conflict.— Protest at 3. The Chief states, however, that he does not recall seeing a written mitigation plan and that the agency has no record of a mitigation plan having been submitted, let alone reviewed and approved, AR, Tab E, Decl. of Chief of Operational Contracting Division at 2; the protester has offered no record of any such plan. Five proposals, including the protester's, were received on the due date. The agency's intent was to make a single award to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. Two days after receipt of proposals, on June 14, the contracting officer learned of the relationship between TCI, MPSC, and VRC and removed the TCI employee from further work on this procurement.