The Last of the GAO Cases for Now

Don't let this happen to you. In Unversity Research Company, LLC, B- 294358, GAO sustained a protest finding that:

In addition, we think the effect of the CO’s actions on this procurement weigh against her continued involvement in this matter.8 Therefore, we recommend that HHS use a different selection official to prepare the new selection decision. If the new source selection decision determines that an offeror other than IQ offers the best value to the government, HHS should terminate IQ’s contract for the convenience of the government and make award to the successful offeror.

GAO synopsis:

Protest challenging the adequacy of a source selection decision is sustained where the selection official ultimately conceded that she knowingly mischaracterized in the source selection document the award recommendation of agency project officers, whose participation in the evaluation of proposals is anticipated by the agency’s acquisition regulation--i.e., she wrote that the project officers recommended award to the awardee, when, in fact, they recommended award to the protester--and, as a result, she fails to state any basis for rejecting their award recommendation. Without documentation in the record explaining the basis for rejecting the input of the project officers, the Government Accountability Office has no basis for determining whether those actions were reasonable.

FINALLY -- what happens when we do not do it right!

In the first case growing out of the Darlene Druyun case, Lockheed Martin Corporation, B-295402, GAO sustained the protest involing an acquisition action which occurred in 2001. Referring to the obvious timeliness issue, GAO stated:

As a procedural matter, our Office's timeliness rules generally preclude consideration of protests challenging agency actions, such as these, that occurred in the relatively distant past. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. 21.2 (2004). Here, however, Lockheed Martin's protest is based on information it first obtained in October 2004 due to the public disclosure at that time of documents relating to Darleen Druyun's criminal conviction and sentencing for violation of the conflict of interest provisions codified at 18U.S.C. 208(a) (2000). [3] Since Lockheed Martin had no reason to previously know of the information disclosed in those documents, we view the protest as timely.

The GAO went on to find that:

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides as follows:
Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships.

Later:

As noted above, where, as here, the record establishes that a procurement official was biased in favor of one offeror, our Office believes that the need to preserve the integrity of the procurement process requires that the agency demonstrate that the protester was not prejudiced by the procurement official's bias in order for our Office to deny the protest. Here, in defending against Lockheed Martin's protest, the agency has maintained that Druyun had no significant involvement or influence in the agency's decisionmaking process leading up to the May 2002 changes and, further, that only the ACC, the user community--not the acquisition community of which Druyun was a part--was in a position to make determinations regarding the contract requirements. As discussed above, the record in this case does not provide persuasive support for either position. [31]

In my view this case is "must" reading for all acquisition officals.