Kearney & Company, PC (W91CRB-22-R-0002)

B-421647.2,B-421647.3 Aug 02, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kearney & Company, PC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-22-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, for financial compliance audit support services. Kearney challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection process, including the consideration of alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), evaluation of proposals under the non-price evaluation factors, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. 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: Kearney & Company, PC File: B-421647.2; B-421647.3 Date: August 2, 2023 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., and Julia Swafford, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for the protester. Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Craig Smith, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Morgan W. Huston, Esq., and Teresita A. Regelbrugge, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Guidehouse Inc., the intervenor. Debra J. Talley, Esq., Thomas L. Clark, Esq., and Kirsten L. Smulovitz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging various organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the agency meaningfully considered the potential for organizational conflicts of interest related to the awardee’s proposal and reasonably found no conflict. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals under non-price evaluation factors is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where both the underlying evaluation and the tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Kearney & Company, PC, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Guidehouse Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91CRB-22-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command--Aberdeen Proving Ground, for financial compliance audit support services. Kearney challenges various aspects of the agency’s source selection process, including the consideration of alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), evaluation of proposals under the non-price evaluation factors, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2022, the agency issued the RFP, seeking financial compliance audit support services for the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and all major subordinate commands. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP Final Conformed Version at 14.[1] Among other things, the contractor’s responsibilities will include providing services “to improve the accuracy, reliability, timeliness, and internal control environment of the AMC Army Working Capital Funds (AWCF) with the ultimate goal of enabling processes and systems capable of successful attestation and audit.” Id. According to the RFP, the agency is “engaged in one of the most complex and challenging business transformations ever attempted in the Army to revolutionize its financial management processes, business rules, and systems across the Army in order to provide more accurate, timely and useful financial information to decision makers.” Id. The RFP contemplated the award of a single contract to be performed over a base year (including a 30-day transition period) and four 1-year option periods. See id.; AR, Tab 8, RFP attach. 4, Price Proposal Model Final. The RFP stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) solution development (technical), (2) past performance, (3) small business participation, and (4) cost/price. RFP at 103. The RFP provided that the agency intended to make award to the offeror whose proposal received an acceptable rating under the small business participation factor and represented the best value after a tradeoff analysis between the other factors.[2] The RFP provided that the non-cost/price factors, combined, were significantly more important than the cost/price factor. Id. Of note, the RFP also required offerors to submit an OCI identification and risk mitigation plan as part of the executive summary volume of the proposal. Id.