Elemental Innovation d/b/a Halo Maritime Defense System (N00024-20-R-6303)

B-419019.4 Mar 11, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Elemental Innovation Inc., a small business of Newton, New Hampshire, doing business as Halo Maritime Defense Systems (Halo), requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest. Halo filed its protest against the award of a contract to Oceanetics, Inc., a small business of Annapolis, Maryland, doing business as Truston Technologies (Truston), under request for proposals (RFP) N00024-20-R-6303, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for port security barriers (PSBs). The protester contended that the agency failed to investigate apparent organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs); conducted a flawed technical evaluation, including the failure to consider prohibitions on the procurement of certain PSB designs; used an unsound internal price estimate; and did not engage in meaningful discussions with Halo, insofar as the discussions relied on the flawed price estimate. After our Office advised the parties at the conclusion of an outcome prediction alternate dispute resolution (ADR) conference that GAO would likely sustain the protest, the Navy indicated that it would take corrective action and we dismissed the protest as academic. We grant the request. View Decision 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:  Elemental Innovation d/b/a Halo Maritime Defense System File:  B-419019.4 Date:  March 11, 2021 Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., and Michael D. Maloney, Esq., Williams Mullen, P.C. for the protester. Candace M. Shields, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Stephanie B. Magnell, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST  GAO recommends reimbursement of all of the costs of filing and pursuing its protest, where the agency agrees that reimbursement is appropriate where it did not investigate allegations of an organizational conflict of interest, and the remaining protest grounds are not clearly severable from the meritorious issue. DECISION Elemental Innovation Inc., a small business of Newton, New Hampshire, doing business as Halo Maritime Defense Systems (Halo), requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest.  Halo filed its protest against the award of a contract to Oceanetics, Inc., a small business of Annapolis, Maryland, doing business as Truston Technologies (Truston), under request for proposals (RFP) N00024-20-R-6303, which was issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, for port security barriers (PSBs).  The protester contended that the agency failed to investigate apparent organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs); conducted a flawed technical evaluation, including the failure to consider prohibitions on the procurement of certain PSB designs; used an unsound internal price estimate; and did not engage in meaningful discussions with Halo, insofar as the discussions relied on the flawed price estimate.  After our Office advised the parties at the conclusion of an outcome prediction alternate dispute resolution (ADR) conference that GAO would likely sustain the protest, the Navy indicated that it would take corrective action and we dismissed the protest as academic. We grant the request. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2020, Halo protested with our Office the Navy’s award to Truston.  Halo alleged that the agency had failed to investigate OCIs in its selection of Truston and that Truston had an unfair competitive advantage that merited disqualification from the competition.  See, e.g., Protest at 27.[1]  In particular, Halo noted that one of Truston’s current employees had previously worked in the Navy’s Facility Engineering Service Center (NFESC), later the Naval Facilities Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC),[2] and during that time had, along with two other Navy employees, designed a particular PSB.  Halo Comments at 7.  The Navy had patented these employees’ PSB designs over several years, including the patent issued on July 22, 2008.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 14(a), U.S. Patent No. 7,401,565 B2 at 1.  In 2009, the Navy licensed this PSB patent (and another) to Truston for commercial use.  See Halo Comments, exh.