Stop Work Order lifted/Decision details posted for $331M VA Cybersecurity Ops Center protest denial

The Department of Veterans Affairs officially announced yesterday that the stop-work order had been lifted for this 5-year CSOC NG II support task, and shared the details related to the protest and the rationale for the denial decision.

Details from GAO below

“DIGEST

1. Protest that awardee had unfair competitive advantage stemming from its having hired a former agency employee is denied where the agency investigated the issue and reasonably concluded that the awardee did not gain an unfair advantage.
2. Protest challenging the evaluation of the protester’s technical quotation is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DISCUSSION

The protester argues the agency’s failure to consider and properly mitigate an alleged conflict of interest tainted the VA’s award decision.  Protest at 25-26; Comments at 8-9; Supp. Comments at 3-4.  In addition, Pueo challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation under the technical factor.  Protest at 11-24; Comments at 3-8; Supp. Comments at 2-3.  In this regard, the protester argues the agency’s assignment of one deficiency, three significant weaknesses, and one weakness was unreasonable.  For the reasons that follow, we find no basis to sustain the protest.3  Unfair Competitive Advantage   Pueo contends the VA failed to consider and adequately address the awardee’s unfair competitive advantage that resulted from the awardee’s hiring of a former VA official.  Protest at 25-26; Comments at 8-9; Supp. Comments at 3-4.  On September 8, after the quotation due date, but before award was made, Pueo notified the VA of a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) based on unequal access to information. Tab 8A, Pueo OCI Memo at 1.  Pueo explained that Maveris recently hired a former VA employee who previously served as the director of the VA’s network security operations center.  Id.  Pueo further explained that this employee would have been involved in “all procurement activities while he was in the position as well as future planning” and he “would have detailed non-public knowledge of budgetary restrictions as well as any contemplated technical requirements.”  Id. at 2.  In response to Pueo’s allegation, the contracting officer investigated the matter.  See AR, Tab 8, OCI Investigation Memo.  The contracting officer found that the former government employee, whom we refer to as Mr. X, served as the director of the VA’s network security operations center and was responsible for building VA’s CSOC.  Mr. X left the VA and joined Maveris in November 2021.  Id. at 2.  The contracting officer’s investigation noted that the current PWS, to include budget planning for such, was developed only within the last year, and that Mr. X was not involved in any requirements development or future planning for this PWS.  Mr. X’s replacement at the VA confirms that the two had no communication regarding the instant requirement.  Id. at 2.  Based on her investigation, the contracting officer “determined that there is no actual or potential unequal access to information OCI pertaining to Maveris’ hiring of Mr. [X] and their potential bid” for this requirement.  Id. at 3.  Pueo contends the agency’s investigation was insufficient.  Comments at 9-10; Supp. Comments at 3-4.  In this regard, the protester argues the VA only engaged in “perfunctory discussions” with relevant agency officials, and failed to consider whether Mr. X had access to nonpublic information.  Comments at 9.  In response, the agency argues its investigation was reasonable and sufficiently considered the protester’s concerns.  Supp. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 4.   As a general matter, contracting agencies are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements.  FAR 3.101-1; Interactive Info. Sols., Inc., B-415126.2 et al., Mar. 22, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 115 at 5.  Where a firm may have gained an unfair competitive advantage through its hiring of a former government official, the firm can be disqualified from a competition based upon the appearance of impropriety that is created by this situation, even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not on mere innuendo or suspicion.  Geo Owl, LLC, B-420599, June 13, 2022, 2022 CPD ¶ 143 at 4.  Thus, a person’s familiarity with the type of work required resulting from the person’s prior position in the government is not, by itself, evidence of an unfair competitive advantage.  Rather, there must be hard facts establishing the person’s access to nonpublic information, which could provide a firm with an unfair competitive advantage.  Interactive Info. Sols., Inc., supra…

DECISION

Pueo Business Solutions, LLC (Pueo), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Fredericksburg, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Maveris, LLC, an SDVOSB of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C10B23Q0450, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for cybersecurity services.  The protester alleges the VA failed to adequately consider and mitigate a conflict of interest, and also challenges the agency’s evaluation of its quotation.  We deny the protest…”

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story