• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Matter of Serco Inc.

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • February 21, 2022
  • Former Government EmployeesOrganizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • 0 Comments

Matter of Serco Inc.

Decided: December 6, 2021

Agency: Department of the Navy

Disposition: Protest Sustained

Keywords: Former Government Employees; Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

 

Protest Insight

This case is unique, because it is a rare example of GAO sustaining a protest based on an Organizational Conflict of Interest (“OCI”). Here, GAO’s conclusion rested heavily on the fact that two former government officials assisted in preparing the awardee’s proposal. This case showcases the potential pitfalls of hiring former government employees without sufficient conflict avoidance and mitigation. As GAO notes here, when an offeror hires former government officials who have had recent access to competitively useful information and uses those officials to assist in proposal preparation efforts, GAO will assume that the offeror benefited from the information.

GAO notes that in this case, the awardee made broad requests for the input of the former officials when preparing the protest, rather than placing limitations on the scope of information they provided. This failure to mitigate the extent of a conflict of interest factored into GAO’s decision to sustain the protest. Not properly handing conflicts of interest, or even apparent conflicts of interest, can have serious consequences for government contractors. If you believe you may have a potential conflict of interest issue and are looking for ways to avoid or mitigate any potential conflicts, General Counsel, P.C. can help you understand your options and make the best decision for your business.

Summary of Facts

Serco, Inc. protests the Department of the Navy’s award of a task order to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (“BAH”), pursuant to request for proposals (“RFP”) No. N0016419R3504, to provide professional support services for the Deputy Commander for Surface Warfare (“SEA 21”). The solicitation explained that the contractor will provide support for four SEA 21 program offices. Of note here, former Navy Captain John Jones served as the program manager for one office from June 2015 to May 2018, and former Navy Captain Sam Smith served as another program manager from August 2014 through June 2017.

On June 12, BAH executed a teaming agreement with Hepburn and Sons, LLC, to assist BAH in preparing a proposal to support the SEA 21 task order recompete. Jones began employment with Hepburn & Sons, LLC and immediately began meeting with the BAH representatives who would later prepare BAH’s proposal. Smith was hired by CDI Government Services and BAH executed a teaming agreement with CDI, providing that CDI would assist BAH in pursuing the SEA 21 recompete contract opportunity. Beginning in September 2018, Smith met with BAH personnel to provide assistance in BAH’s ongoing efforts to compete for the task order. Smith later accepted employment with Hepburn where he continued to assist BAH in its proposal preparation.

On August 13, 2018, the agency issued a sources sought notice that included a draft statement of work for the SEA 21 task order recompetition and on July 29, 2019 the agency issued the solicitation to contractors. Proposals were submitted by Serco and BAH. BAH’s price was roughly 15% lower than Serco’s price and the agency awarded the task order to BAH. Serco filed this protest.

Basis of Protest

Serco argues BAH’s proposal should have been disqualified from the competition, because it employed two recently-retired Navy captains who improperly provided material assistance to BAH in preparing its proposal by giving BAH access to non-public competitively useful information. The agency argues that Jones’s and Smith’s access to information did not create an “unfair competitive advantage” because the information was “not competitively useful.”

Protest Sustained

GAO explained that FAR subparts 9.5 and 3.1 prohibit conflicts of interest in the government’s procurements, directing agencies to “avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.” “Where an offeror chooses to hire former government officials who have had recent access to competitively useful information, and uses those officials to assist in proposal preparation efforts” GAO will assume that the offeror benefited from the information. Additionally, GAO explained that “disqualification is appropriate based on the appearance of an unfair competitive advantage alone.” GAO reviews the reasonableness of an agency’s determination with regard to an unfair competitive advantage, taking into consideration the particular facts presented by each situation, including the credibility of the information on which the agency relied.

GAO noted that, here, Jones and Smith were recruited and hired either before or shortly after leaving government employment to assist in BAH’s proposal preparation efforts. As program managers, Jones and Smith had virtually unlimited access to Serco’s detailed information regarding prior costs staffing, technical approach, and past performance. The record shows that BAH made broad requests for Jones’s and Smith’s proposal input, rather than placing limitations on the scope of information they provided.

GAO concluded that the agency did not have a reasonable basis for determining that the information to which Jones and Smith had access did not constitute non-public competitively useful information.

Thus, GAO disagreed with the agency’s assertion that it reasonably concluded that BAH did not obtain an unfair competitive advantage in preparing its proposal. GAO ultimately found that BAH had access to information that was not public and was competitively useful, and BAH obtained an unfair competitive advantage in preparing its successful proposal. GAO recommended that the agency either disqualify BAH’s proposal or initiate actions to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate the potential impact of the information to which the former Navy employees had access, and seek revised proposals.

Our Government Contracts Practice Group has extensive experience in government contract law, helping clients solve their government contract problems relating to the award or performance of a federal government contract, including bid protests, contract claims, small business concerns, and teaming and subcontractor relations. If you need more guidance or information, contact Craig Lawless, Senior Counsel in our Government Contracts practice area at General Counsel, P.C., 703-266-1865.

 

Share

Related Posts

So… Do Ya Still Think “Different Size / Scope” Argument works for Impaired Objectivity OCI?

September 29, 2022

Matter of American Systems Corporation

February 7, 2022

Threat Management Group, B-407766.6, July 3, 2013

August 12, 2013

Pillar Systems Corporation, B-408221, July 11, 2013

August 1, 2013

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Facility Clearance
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • Impaired Objectivity
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursed Attorney's Fees
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-703-556-0411
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2023 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-703-556-0411