B-310489.4, Superlative Technologies, Inc., June 3, 2008

B-310489.4 Jun 03, 2008 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Superlative Technologies, Inc. (SuperTec) protests the failure of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), to establish and document the facts surrounding the agency's prior cancellation of a procurement, where that cancellation was based on the agency's concerns that communications with and disclosure of information to various offerors, including ManTech International Corporation, created potential procurement integrity violations and/or organizational conflicts of interest. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-310489.4, Superlative Technologies, Inc., June 3, 2008 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: Superlative Technologies, Inc. File: B-310489.4 Date: June 3, 2008 Kenneth D. Brody, Esq., and Thomas K. David, Esq., David, Brody & Dondershine, LLP, for the protester. Rafael A. Madan, Esq., John L. Pensinger, Esq., Melinda D. Hart, Esq., and Rhonda Jones, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency's cancellation of solicitation, based on a potential –unfair advantage— provided to one or more of the offerors as a result of the agency's communications with and disclosure of information to the various offerors, cannot be reasonably reconciled with the agency's subsequent sole-source contract award to a team comprised of one of the offerors with whom the various communications occurred and to whom the information was disclosed, absent the agency's determination and creation of documentation regarding the substance of the communications with and the specific information disclosed to the various offerors. 2. Where agency has canceled a solicitation on the basis of concerns regarding procurement integrity violations and/or organizational conflicts of interest, and subsequently reopened the procurement under another contract vehicle, the agency must comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements regarding identifying and resolving procurement integrity issues and/or organizational conflicts of interest. DECISION Superlative Technologies, Inc. (SuperTec) protests the failure of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), to establish and document the facts surrounding the agency's prior cancellation of a procurement, where that cancellation was based on the agency's concerns that communications with and disclosure of information to various offerors, including ManTech International Corporation, created potential procurement integrity violations and/or organizational conflicts of interest. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In June 2007, the agency issued request for quotations (RFQ) No. 2007Q-025 to provide information security support services for OJP's Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO); the tasks contemplated under this solicitation are to be directed and managed by the OCIO's Information Technology Security Division (ITSD).[1] The solicitation contemplated award of a contract for a 12'month base period, with four 12-month option periods and a total estimated value of $13.5 million, established various technical and cost/price evaluation factors, and stated that –technical merit is more important than cost or price.— First Agency Report (AR1), RFQ No. 2007Q-025, Tab 1, at A'3.[2] The ITSD director, who was also the contracting officer's technical representative (COTR), was primarily responsible for determining the substance of the solicitation's statement of work (SOW), and for presenting the procurement request to DOJ/OJP executives for funding and approval.[3] Prior to issuance of the solicitation, the ITSD director/COTR engaged in various communications regarding the solicitation requirements with personnel employed by ManTech, SuperTec, and another contractor. On or about July 12, proposals were submitted by ManTech, SuperTec, and a third offeror;[4] these proposals were thereafter evaluated and discussions were conducted. Shortly thereafter, the ITSD director/COTR became concerned that the substance of her communications with ManTech and the third offeror had been improper. Specifically, in an email to the contracting officer dated July 24, 2007, the ITSD director/COTR notified the contracting officer that, in preparing the solicitation's requirements, she had –consulted with ManTech and [the third offeror]— regarding –requirements, pricing and labor categories,— and that these communications –may have provided an unfair advantage to ManTech and [the third offeror] because they had an idea what the labor categories might be in advance.— AR1, Tab F.