The Government Accountability Office denied a series of bid protest allegations Perspecta levied against a $7.7 billion Navy contract award after concluding the company failed to substantiate the substance and impact of its accusations.
The Navy in March awarded Leidos a services contract associated with the Next Generation Enterprise Network program. Perspecta, the contract incumbent, and General Dynamics Information Technology both filed bid protests. GD IT's protest was also denied.
While GAO announced the denials in June, the watchdog last week published detailed summaries explaining each decision.
Perspecta alleged the Navy improperly waived a conflict of interest, Leidos had an unfair advantage by hiring a former government employee with access to sensitive information and that evaluators erred on several fronts while assessing the company's technical submissions and price estimates.
GD IT filed a bid protest complaining the Navy conducted "misleading discussions" that resulted in their proposal being disqualified early in the assessment process. Perspecta also claimed the service's discussions were misleading.
GAO dismissed each of these allegations, concluding that Perspecta failed to establish the "hard facts" necessary to substantiate its allegations. The watchdog also found in several circumstances that even if Perspecta's challenges "prevailed," evaluators still would have likely recommended awarding the contract to Leidos.
A Perspecta spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment. A GD IT spokesman declined to comment.
GAO came to similar conclusions about both claims regarding "misleading discussions." The watchdog found the Navy made a good faith effort to assist each contractor with their submissions during the discussion period, which is what the law dictates. The service is not, GAO noted, required to "spoon feed" a company or re-open discussion.
For example, Perspecta alleged the acquisition by Science Applications International Corp. of Unisys, one of Leidos' proposed subcontractors, resulted in a conflict of interest. Through a separate contract, SAIC had oversight of a task order drafting NGEN procurement documents. SAIC's acquisition was announced shortly after the NGEN contract was awarded to Leidos.
"The protester [Perspecta] notes that '$1.2 billion transactions do not happen overnight' and asserts that it is 'quite possible that SAIC and Unisys began talks, and thus became aligned for [organizational conflict of interest] purposes prior to proposal submission, or shortly thereafter,'" GAO wrote.
The watchdog goes on to explain a lengthy process in which the Navy investigated the issue and Perspecta challenged the inquiry's thoroughness.
"Ultimately, we find that the contracting officer's investigation of this issue was reasonable, particularly in light of the absence of any hard facts supporting Perspecta's conjecture that SAIC gained access to competitively useful information," GAO wrote.
Another allegation involved Leidos hiring a former Navy employee who worked at Naval Information Warfare Systems Command, an agency with direct oversight of the NGEN contract, as its NGEN program manager. The former Navy employee had access to the NAVWAR commander's email account.
Perspecta argued the program manager's access amounted to Leidos having competitively useful, non-public information about the Navy's acquisition plans. The service investigated this claim and Perspecta again challenged the Navy's investigation, according to GAO.
The watchdog agency determined the Navy's investigation was reasonable and said Perspecta failed to explain how any information the NAVWAR commander received would have been competitively useful. GAO also noted the NGEN solicitation has undergone significant changes since Leidos' program manager retired from the military several years ago.
Regarding Perspecta's technical submissions and price estimates, GAO's summary presents a lengthy discussion about the Navy's evaluations and concedes parts of the assessment were flawed.
However, the watchdog concluded the Navy's "evaluation was reasonable and that the majority of [Perspecta's] complaints amount to disagreement with the agency's decision-making," GAO wrote.
"To the extent that there were errors in the agency's evaluation, these errors did not result in competitive prejudice because Perspecta's proposal remains higher-priced and lower-rated when viewed in the most favorable light to Perspecta," GAO continued.