• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

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

Unisys Corporation, B-403054.2, February 8, 2011

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • March 31, 2011
  • Former Government EmployeesPersonal Conflicts of Interest

Link: GAO Opinion

Agency: Department of Defense

Disposition: Protest denied.

Keywords: Hiring former government workers; personal conflicts of interest

General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Agencies are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements. In this regard, 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 on the appearance of impropriety which is created by this situation, that is, even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

Unisys Corporation (Unisys) protests the issuance of a task order to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO), under a request for proposals (RFP), for data center operations and technical support activities.

DITCO issued the RFP for a task order under Encore II, a multiple-award task order contract. The Encore II task order at issue contemplated the issuance of fixed-price task order with a base year and four one-year option periods, for Defense Enterprise Computing Services (DECC), Technical and Operations Support. The agency maintains that the Encore II contractor is to perform “industry standard tasks found in most, if not all data centers.” While the solicitation estimated that performance of the task order required 156 full-time equivalents (FTEs), it also provided that firms should offer their own selection of labor categories and number of FTEs that would, in the offeror’s judgment, provide the best value to the agency. The current task order is a follow-on to a task order issued to Unisys under the prior Encore I multiple award contract.

R.R., an individual, was the Chief of the Technical Support Division at DECC for much of the duration of the Encore I task order. The record reflects that he was one of four Division Chiefs overseeing Unisys’s performance.As R.R. was nearing his retirement, the Encore II procurement was still in its planning stages. The record contains evidence that he participated in the planning for Encore II at least through August 2009, and that from May 2009 through June 2009, R.R. was approached by SAIC about possible employment opportunities, and after each contact, R.R. rejected SAIC’s advances. Five weeks after R.R.’s retirement, in February 2010, the contracting officer released the draft solicitation for the current task order to the Encore II contract holders. DITCO released the final RFP, which included the evaluation plan as an attachment, on March 15. On March 30, R.R. became a temporary consultant to SAIC. Proposals in response to the RFP were due April 5.

Unisys initially protested the selection of SAIC, alleging that it had obtained an unfair competitive advantage when it employed the former DISA Division Chief, R.R., to assist in its proposal preparation. The agency announced that it would take corrective action, specifically, that it would investigate the facts surrounding R.R.’s employment with SAIC. Based on its internal investigation, the agency concluded that the Division Chief’s activities did not provide SAIC with an unfair competitive advantage. In this regard, the report found that R.R.’s knowledge of Unisys’s performance of the Encore I task order was limited to Unisys’s labor categories and staffing, as it related to his own Division, and that he did not have insight into Unisys’s overall labor categories or staffing. The report also found that R.R. did not have access to Unisys’s pricing (labor rates) for the Encore I task order and that “even if he had knowledge of the Unisys labor rates, that information was outdated.” DISA informed Unisys that the selection of SAIC would not be disturbed.

Unisys alleges that SAIC gained an unfair competitive advantage through R.R.’s access to Unisys’s proprietary information, namely, the data contained in the ATAAPS and vacancy reports, as well as his alleged insider knowledge of pending workforce reductions that would affect the number of FTEs needed to perform the Encore II task order. GAO states that contracting agencies are to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in government procurements. In this regard, 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 on the appearance of impropriety which is created by this situation, that is, even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination of an unfair competitive advantage is based on facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion. To resolve this question, GAO typically considers all relevant information, including whether (in cases such as this) the former government employee had access to competitively useful inside information, as well as whether the former government employee’s activities with the firm were likely to have resulted in a disclosure of such information. Whether the appearance of impropriety based on an alleged unfair competitive advantage exists depends on the circumstances in each case, and, ultimately, the responsibility for determining whether to continue to allow an offeror to compete in the face of such an alleged impropriety is a matter for the contracting agency, which will not be disturbed unless it is shown to be unreasonable.

As noted above, the agency’s investigation of the unfair competitive advantage concluded that R.R. had no knowledge of Unisys’s overall staffing, labor categories, or actual labor rates for the Encore I task order. The record, however, reflects, as explained above, that R.R. did in fact have access to this information through the ATAAPS reports, which he received between 2007 and 2008. But, in 2011 GAO finds that the information was outdated, rendering it not competitively useful, and thus its disclosure would not have provided SAIC with any competitive advantage in the Encore II task order competition. As the ATAAPS reports indicate, the agency employed numerous different contractors to support its efforts, Unisys being but one of them. Thus, information regarding how Unisys historically staffed the Encore I task order would have been discernable by regular observation, and GAO would not consider such information proprietary.

Unisys next alleges that R.R. had access to competitively useful inside information concerning the agency’s requirements for Encore II, namely, the agency’s intent to reduce the number of FTEs available for the performance of the Encore II task order. As an initial matter, there is no evidence in the record that R.R. had access to plans to reduce staffing for the Encore II task order. Given the lack of “hard facts” in this regard, there is no basis on which to find that R.R. afforded SAIC a competitive advantage as Unisys has alleged. Even assuming that R.R. had access to information about the potential for future FTE reductions, the information, by its nature, could not have provided SAIC with an advantage. As DITCO maintains, the information was of such an undefined and indefinite nature that its knowledge could not have been of any meaningful competitive utility. Moreover, the record reflects, as DITCO argues, staffing for the task order was authorized at 156 FTEs, this number was provided as the government’s staffing estimate in the solicitation, and there is nothing to indicate that the agency’s understanding of this estimate changed at any point up until the time of SAIC’s award. Given this record, GAO has no basis to conclude that R.R. had access to non-public information that could have provided SAIC with an unfair competitive advantage. The protest is denied.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of Serco Inc.

February 21, 2022

TranLogistics, LLC, B-407215, November 30, 2012

December 5, 2012

Comments are closed

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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 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

+1-571-223-6845