Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (N0016419R3504)

B-419617.4 Aug 25, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Serco, Inc., B-419617.2, B-419617.3, Dec. 6, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 382. In that decision GAO sustained Serco's protest against the issuance of a task order to BAH for professional support services for the Deputy Commander for Surface Warfare (SEA 21) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016419R3504. BAH asserts that our decision is tainted by errors of fact and law. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc.--Reconsideration File: B-419617.4 Date: August 25, 2022 Kristen Ittig, Esq., Mark Colley, Esq., Thomas Pettit, Esq., and Aime J. Joo, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Daniel Forman, Esq., Zachary Schroeder, Esq., James Peyster, Esq., and William O’Reilly, Crowell & Moring LLP, for Serco, Inc. Candace M. Shields, Esq., and Ryan M. Banach, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reconsideration of prior decision is denied where the requester does not show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law and any alleged errors in the decision were not material to, and would not provide a basis to change, the outcome. DECISION Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH), of McLean, Virginia, requests reconsideration of our decision in Serco, Inc., B-419617.2, B-419617.3, Dec. 6, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 382. In that decision GAO sustained Serco’s protest against the issuance of a task order to BAH for professional support services for the Deputy Commander for Surface Warfare (SEA 21) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N0016419R3504.[1] BAH asserts that our decision is tainted by errors of fact and law. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on July 29, 2019. Under the task order, the contractor is required to provide support for four program offices, including, as relevant to this request for reconsideration, surface-ship in-service readiness (PMS 443), and surface training systems (PMS 339). Serco was the incumbent contractor performing the previously issued task order. Following the submission and evaluation of proposals, and a best-value tradeoff determination, the task order was issued to BAH. On February 3, 2021, Serco filed a protest with our Office challenging the award to BAH. Serco argued, among other things, that BAH had an improper competitive advantage that resulted from the employment by BAH’s teaming partners of two recently‑retired Navy captains, Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones, who had been program managers for two of the program offices supported by this task order.[2] Mr. Smith was the program manager for the training systems program office (PMS 339) from August 2014 through June 2017; Mr. Jones was the program manager for the surface-ship in-service readiness program office (PMS 443) from June 2015 to May 2018. Serco alleged that these two individuals improperly provided material assistance and an unfair competitive advantage to BAH in preparing its proposal by giving BAH access to non-public competitively useful information. We dismissed Serco’s protest when the Navy took corrective action so that the contracting officer could investigate this allegation. Serco, Inc., B-419617, Mar. 29, 2021 (unpublished decision). The contracting officer subsequently conducted an investigation into whether Smith and Jones had access to non-public, competitively useful information that resulted in an unfair competitive advantage for BAH. As part of this investigation, the contracting officer also considered whether BAH obtained a competitive advantage from its contact with other Navy personnel. The contracting officer concluded that BAH did not obtain a competitive advantage and affirmed the award to BAH. Serco filed a second protest with our Office, asserting that the agency failed to reasonably consider the competitive advantage obtained by BAH through its access to, and use of, non-public, competitively useful information obtained from the employment of Smith and Jones, and from meetings BAH held with a contracting officer’s representative prior to the release of the solicitation. We sustained that protest, which is the subject of BAH’s request for reconsideration. Our decision agreed with Serco that BAH had an unfair competitive advantage which resulted from the employment by BAH’s teaming partner of the two recently retired Navy captains.