Guidehouse Inc. (HQ003423R0124)

B-421740.3,B-421740.4 Jul 23, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Guidehouse, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, the incumbent contractor, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte & Touche LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ003423R0124, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), for audit remediation and sustainment services. Guidehouse argues that WHS failed to investigate and mitigate a government employee's personal conflict of interest. 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: Guidehouse Inc. File: B-421740.3; B-421740.4 Date: July 23, 2024 Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Cara L. Sizemore, Esq., Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., and Morgan W. Huston, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. David S. Cohen, Esq. and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Deloitte & Touche LLP, the intervenor. Stephan Piel, Esq. and Wayne T. Branom, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq. and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to mitigate an agency employee's personal conflict of interest regarding her participation in the drafting of the solicitation is denied where the record shows that the agency considered the integrity of the ground rules of the competition and their potential for bias and determined that the employee's participation did not create any competitive harm to the protester. DECISION Guidehouse, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, the incumbent contractor, protests the issuance of a task order to Deloitte & Touche LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HQ003423R0124, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services (WHS), for audit remediation and sustainment services. Guidehouse argues that WHS failed to investigate and mitigate a government employee's personal conflict of interest. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 10, 2023, WHS issued the RFQ to procure audit remediation and sustainment services supporting the agency's annual audit of other defense organizations' (ODO) financial statements.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 19. Specifically, the selected vendor would be required to provide program management and audit support services, develop and test financial controls, reconcile budgetary information, draft memoranda of understanding, and utilize “Tiger Teams”[2] for special projects. Id. at 2123. Further, the selected vendor would primarily support the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) because the OUSD(C) bears responsibility for overseeing ODO's efforts to obtaining and sustaining an unmodified audit opinion of the ODO's financial statements. Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. Competition was limited to holders of blanket purchase agreements (BPA) that previously had been established by the agency against vendors' federal supply schedule contracts. AR, Tab 2, RFQ, amend. 1 at 115. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a single hybrid task order with fixed-price, labor-hour, and timeandmaterials contract line-items to be performed over a 1-year base period, and four 1-year option periods. RFQ at 31; RFQ, amend. 1 at 115; RFQ, amend. 2 at 152. The procurement was conducted using the procedures set forth under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405-3. RFQ, amend. 2 at 151. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical approach and capability, management approach, and price factors.[3] RFQ, amend. 2 at 152-153. The RFQ advised that the non-price factors were of equal importance and were individually more important than the price factor. Id. at 151. As relevant here, under the technical approach and capability factor, the RFQ instructed vendors to respond to two scenarios. RFQ at 75. The first scenario focused on DOD's fund balance with Treasury. Id. It required the vendor to provide a “Tiger Team Project Plan” to develop solutions for reducing undistributed and unmatched transactions regarding other defense agencies' fund balances with Treasury. Id. The second scenario required the vendor to develop a strategy for creating a “Universe of Transactions” through investigating intragovernmental transactions and eliminations across the other defense agencies. Id. at 76. The RFQ advised that the agency would evaluate each vendor's technical approach and capability by assessing their responses to the two scenarios. RFQ, amend. 2 at 152. The agency would examine each vendor's understanding, ingenuity, and ability to satisfy the requirements.