Decision Released: DOD Audit Remediation and Sustainment Services Conflict of Interest Assertion Protest Denial

File No.  B-421740.3,B-421740.4

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.

Discussion

Guidehouse argues that the agency conducted a flawed conflict of interest investigation. First, Guidehouse contends that the contracting officer failed to participate meaningfully; instead, Guidehouse argues that the investigation was limited to another agency employee’s (Employee B) findings and conclusions. First Supp. Protest at 3. Second, Guidehouse contends that the agency’s investigation was unreasonably limited in scope because the agency did not determine the extent of Employee A’s financial interest in Deloitte. Id. at 3-4. Finally, Guidehouse contends that the agency’s conclusions are inaccurate because the record shows that Employee A was heavily involved in developing and approving the PWS and the evaluation factors.[4] Id. at 5-6.

The agency counters that the investigation affirmatively demonstrated that any apparent or actual conflict of interest did not prejudice Guidehouse’s competitive position. The agency explains that the contracting officer relied on Employee B to review Employee A’s role in developing and approving the RFQ, and that Employee B determined that Employee A’s role was limited. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 13. The agency explains that the contracting officer reviewed how the RFQ was drafted and determined that Employee A did not drive any significant changes that could have aided Deloitte. Id. Additionally, the agency explains that the contracting officer relied on Employee B’s reports to conclude that the RFQ did not contain advantages for Deloitte or prejudicial requirements for Guidehouse …

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.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story