Decision Released: Army Research Facilitation Laboratory Support Services Protest Denial

File No. B-422585,B-422585.2,B-422585.3

Digest

1. Protest challenging agency’s affirmative determination of responsibility of awardee is denied where the protester has not shown that the contracting officer unreasonably ignored information that would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible.
2. Protest alleging that awardee gained an unfair competitive advantage based on employment of a former government official is denied where the agency, after investigating the alleged conflict of interest, reasonably concluded that the former official did not have access to non-public, competitively useful information.
3. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria, and the protester was not competitively prejudiced by any evaluation error.
4. Protest of agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the protester has not shown that the underlying evaluation was unreasonable.

Discussion

Peraton contends that the agency erroneously found Booz Allen to be a responsible offeror. Peraton also alleges that Booz Allen obtained an unfair competitive advantage through its employment of a former Army official, and the agency unreasonably failed to disqualify Booz Allen from the procurement on that basis. Moreover, Peraton also challenges various aspects of the Army’s evaluation of technical proposals and the resulting award decision. While our decision does not address every allegation raised by the protester, we have considered them all and find that none provides a basis to sustain the protest.

Peraton argues that the agency improperly determined Booz Allen to be a responsible offeror. In this regard, the protester contends that the agency failed to consider information about Booz Allen’s recent settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to resolve allegations of False Claims Act violations. Protest at 51-54. Peraton asserts that the agency knew or should have known about the settlement, not only because it was widely publicized, but also because the Army was one of the agencies involved in DOJ’s investigation into the matter. Id.; Comments and 2nd Supp. Protest at 39-47. The protester argues that it was unreasonable for the agency to determine the awardee to be responsible considering the seriousness of the allegations …

Decision

Peraton Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., of McLean, Virginia, under request for task order proposals (RFTOP) No. C-115689-0, issued by the Department of the Army for research facilitation laboratory support services. The protester contends that the agency erroneously found the awardee to be a responsible offeror and that the awardee obtained an unfair competitive advantage by hiring a former agency employee. The protester also challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision.  We deny the protest.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story