SUBSCRIBE NOW
1. Camden Shipping Corporation, B-402743.2, November 5, 2010
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Transportation
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Certification Requirements
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Where a protester challenges an agency's evaluation resulting in the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable, GAO's review is limited to considering whether the evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.
Camden Shipping Corporation (Camden) protests the rejection of its proposal under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT), for ship manager services for 10 ships.
The RFP contemplated the award of multi-year, fixed-price service contracts with cost reimbursable items. The selected contractor will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of 10 very large government-owned vessels. "Ship Group 26," for which solicited services were set aside for small business concerns, is comprised of two fast sealift ships. These ships require a high level of sophistication to operate due to their size and speed. The RFP included a mandatory eligibility requirement that required offeror's to have operated or owned and operated, a very large vessel within the past five years. The RFP also required offeror's to complete a "K.19" certification demonstrating compliance with the eligibility requirement.
The RFP also stated, with regard to the past performance factor, that the agency would assess the relevancy of each offeror's present and past performance, including the past performance of the offeror's subcontractors. However, the contractor awarded the contract must perform the "core services" required.
Camden submitted a proposal in response to the RFP for Ship Group 26 and submitted a vessel owner/operator certification in accordance with section K.19, which indicated that Camden was not a current operator or owner/operator of a vessel of the requisite size and, instead, stated that Camden was relying on a certification for its teaming partner and principle subcontractor for compliance with the requirement. Camden was advised that its proposal was eliminated from further consideration due to its certification statement.
Camden asserts that it was improper for the agency to reject its proposal simply because it relied on the experience of its subcontractor to satisfy the vessel owner/operator requirement.
GAO states that where a protester challenges an agency's evaluation resulting in the rejection of its proposal as unacceptable, GAO's review is limited to considering whether the evaluation is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the RFP and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. The protester's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment does not establish that an evaluation was unreasonable.
Based on a review of the record, GAO finds that the RFP continuously warned vendors that in order to be eligible for award, the offeror had to meet mandatory eligibility requirements and had to submit adequate documentation to demonstrate compliance. The K.19 certification made no mention of accepting, in lieu of the offeror's certification, a certification of a subcontractor or teaming partner. That the certification was required by the offeror, and not its subcontractors, is also consistent with the section requiring that core services be performed by the offeror and not its subcontractors. GAO finds that the agency's refusal to accept the certification was reasonable. The protest is denied.
2. Delta-21 Resources, Inc., B-403586, November 10, 2010
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Agriculture
Disposition: Protest denied.
Keywords: Price Realism; limitation on subcontracting
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: GAO has repeatedly held that the depth of an agency's price realism analysis is a matter within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion. GAO's focus is on whether the agency acted reasonably and in a manner consistent with the solicitation's requirements.
Delta-21 Resources, Inc. (Delta) protests the award of a contract under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), for services to support the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The SNAP, which is the successor to the Food Stamp Program, "provides low-income households with SNAP benefits to purchase food in selected retail stores." In order to participate in SNAP, a retail store submits an application to the agency, and the agency collects information through a store site visit to confirm certain of the information provided. The contractor awarded this contract, will supplement the agency's "ability to visit food stores for the purpose of confirming that the stores are eligible" to participate in the SNAP, by conducting site visits and documenting observations.
The RFP, issued as a total small business set-aside, provided for the awardee of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base period of one year with four one-year options. The RFP stated that the offerors' price/cost proposals would be evaluated for "price realism and reasonableness," and that as part of this evaluation, the agency would consider the prices per store site visit using the baseline of 25,000 visits per year and excess quantities of 5,000 visits per year as set forth in pricing worksheets.
Delta's proposal was found to be "significantly higher" on a price-per-visit basis, than the other contract prices. Delta and the eventual awardee were asked to "justify their original proposed prices, and/or provide pricing adjustments." Delta, in response, explained that its prices were higher than its own historical prices as an incumbent contractor because of the RFP's requirements regarding DOL wage determinations and SCA requirements. The agency ultimately decided to go with the lower priced proposal.
Delta argues that the agency's price realism evaluation is flawed in that the agency did not reasonably consider whether the greater number of store visits per trip proposed by the awardee was realistic.
GAO has repeatedly held that the depth of an agency's price realism analysis is a matter within the sound exercise of the agency's discretion. GAO's focus is on whether the agency acted reasonably and in a manner consistent with the solicitation's requirements.
GAO finds no basis to conclude that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal for price realism was unreasonable. The agency communicated with both offeror's regarding proposed prices, and reasonably found, based upon its consideration of the awardee's proposed technical approach, that the awardee's prices were realistic. Delta's disagreement with how the agency conducted its price realism analysis does not establish that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable.
Delta also argues that the agency "failed to evaluate whether the awardee's proposal complied with the limitations on subcontracting clause."
GAO states that, as a general matter, an agency's judgment as to whether a small business offeror will be able to comply with a subcontracting limitation present a question of responsibility. However, where a proposal, on its face, should lead an agency to the conclusion that an offeror has not agreed to comply with the subcontracting limitation, the matter is one of the proposal's acceptability.
The awardee's proposal expressly addressed that firm's proposed compliance with the subcontracting limitation by listing the "team members" and their respective "estimated work share." The awardee's proposal also included a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, as suggested by the RFP, which provided that the awardee would "augment staff to reduce dependency on subcontractors" if needed to ensure continued compliance. GAO agrees with the agency that there was nothing on the face of the awardee's proposal evidencing that the awardee had not agreed to comply with the subcontracting limitation. The protest is denied.
3. NCS Technologies, Inc., B-403435, November 8, 2010
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Disposition: Protest sustained.
Keywords: Protesting the Terms of a Solicitation
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: An agency may include requirements that restrict competition in a solicitation only to the extent they are necessary to satisfy its legitimate needs.
NCS Technologies, Inc. (NCS) protests the terms of a request for quotations (RFQ), issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for computer hardware.
The RFQ was issued to DHS's First Source contract holders and several small vendors on the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) 70, provided for establishing a blanket purchase agreement with a five-year term for commercial off-the-shelf laptops, desktops, and monitors. Among the requirements identified for the computers and monitors was that all of the computers and monitors must be from the same manufacturer and must use an Intel-based microprocessor. Vendors were also informed that they must submit with their quotations, "a 3rd party review less than 2 years old such as that provided by 'Square Trade, PC Magazine, Byte, etc.' demonstrating that the proposed manufacturer suite of equipment has been rated average or above in reliability as show in the report provided."
NCS objects to the requirement that all computers and monitors be from the same manufacturer and that the computers use an Intel-based microprocessor. NCS also objects to the third party review requirement.
GAO states that although a contracting agency has the discretion to determine its needs and the best method to accommodate them, the agency may include restrictive requirements only to the extent they are necessary to satisfy its legitimate needs. GAO reviews challenges to allegedly restrictive requirements to determine whether the restrictions are reasonably necessary to meet the agency's needs. The adequacy of the agency's justification is ascertained through examining whether the agency's explanation is reasonable, that is, whether the explanation can withstand logical scrutiny.
GAO's review of the record finds that there is no analysis or documentation supporting the agency's justification for its standardization requirement. The agency has provided a statement from an information technology project manager, who generally asserts that standardizing the computers and monitors to a single manufacturer reduces costs and provides other benefits. However, the project manager does not identify any analyses or studies to support this; nor does the project manager provide any explanation or analyses that would show the extent to which these claimed benefits would be achieved by this restriction. GAO is unable to find that the agency's asserted justification for the restriction is reasonable and therefore finds that the agency should review this requirement. The agency has also not provided any analyses or studies supporting its claimed need for Intel-based microprocessors.
Finally, GAO finds that the agency should also reconsider its requirement for third party reviews since the phrase "average or above in reliability" is unclear to the meaning of both "average or above" and "reliability," as the meaning of these words vary depending upon the reviewer. The protest is sustained and GAO recommends that the agency review its requirements for a single manufacturer and Intel-based microprocessors to determine whether these reflect the agency's legitimate needs.
4. CIGNA Government Services, LLC, B-401062.2; B-401062.3, May 6, 2009
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Disposition: Protest sustained.
Keywords: Discussions
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Where an agency undertakes discussions with offerors, the contracting officer shall discuss with each firm being considered for award deficiencies and significant weaknesses identified in the firm's proposal. Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, and not misleading.
CIGNA Government Services, LLC protests the award of a contract under request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to obtain a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide certain health insurance benefit administrative services.
The RFP provided for the award of four cost-plus-award-fee contracts, each with a base period of one year with four one-year options, for four geographic areas, or "jurisdictions," in the United States for MAC services. This protest concerns the award of a contract for Jurisdiction 15, which includes the administration of Medicare Part A and Part B services for Kentucky and Ohio, as well as the administration of Home, Health and Hospice (HH&H) services for several other states.
The solicitation stated that the agency would award a contract for each jurisdiction to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to provide the best value to the government, considering the evaluation factors of technical understanding, personnel implementation, past performance, and information security plan. The solicitation further advised that "[o]fferors who propose on more than one jurisdiction will be evaluated independently on each jurisdiction," and that "[i]f, after the evaluation of each jurisdiction under this solicitation an offeror is the potential winner of more than one jurisdiction, [the agency] will assess the associated risks with awarding one offeror multiple jurisdictions."
The agency received proposals from five offerors for Jurisdiction 15 and four proposals, including CIGNA's, were included in the competitive range. Three rounds of discussions were conducted, and final proposal revisions (FPR) were requested and received.
CIGNA first argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with it regarding its proposed costs. In this regard, the record reflects that the agency upwardly adjusted CIGNA's proposed costs, as set forth in CIGNA's FPR, based primarily on the agency's "analysis of the FPR output mail and postage [that] revealed that [CIGNA] significantly understated these costs when compared with the costs proposed by the other [Jurisdiction 15] offerors," and determination that CIGNA's costs here were thus "unrealistically low."
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that where an agency undertakes discussions with offerors, the contracting officer shall discuss with each firm being considered for award deficiencies and significant weaknesses identified in the firm's proposal. Discussions must be meaningful, equitable, and not misleading. Discussions cannot be meaningful unless they lead an offeror into those weaknesses, excesses or deficiencies in its proposal that must be addressed in order for the proposal to have a reasonable chance of being selected for contract award.
GAO states that it disagrees with the agency's contention that its concerns with CIGNA's proposed printing and postage costs, and the resultant upward adjustment to CIGNA's proposed costs, were "minor" or otherwise concerned matters that did not have to be raised with CIGNA in order for discussions to be meaningful. GAO does not believe that the agency has adequately explained why an upward adjustment to CIGNA's proposed costs of a certain percent can reasonably be characterized as "minor" or otherwise inconsequential under the circumstances here. Additionally, GAO notes that the agency has not pointed to anything in the contemporaneous record of the evaluation and source selection stating or otherwise providing that the failure to raise this issue with CIGNA during discussions was due to the agency's view that the cost adjustment was "minor." As such, GAO gives little weight to the agency's assertions crafted in the heat of litigation that the agency's upward cost adjustment to CIGNA's proposal would have been and should be considered "minor," and thus was not required to be raised during discussions.
Although the agency correctly points out that an agency has no duty to reopen discussions to allow an offeror to address proposal defects or significant weaknesses first introduced in the offeror's response to discussions or in a post-discussion proposal revision, such was not the case here. That is, the agency does not claim, and there is nothing in the record to indicate, that the discrepancy between CIGNA's proposed printing and postage costs and the other offerors' proposed printing and postage costs was different in any material way between the offerors' initial proposals and FPRs. The fact that the agency did not realize until after discussions had concluded and the agency had received FPRs that CIGNA's proposed printing and mailing costs were substantially lower than the costs proposed for these same services by the other offerors, and thus, in the agency's view, were understated, does not relieve the agency of its obligation to conduct meaningful discussions. Where, as here, the GAO states, an agency, after discussions are completed, identifies a concern pertaining to the proposal as it was prior to discussions that would have had to be raised if it had been identified before discussions were held, the agency is required to reopen discussions in order to raise its concern with the relevant offeror.
CIGNA also argues that the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal as "very good" with "low risk" under the past performance factor was unreasonable. Specifically, CIGNA points out that the contracting officer, in his award recommendation, specifically mentioned as "strengths" various aspects of one of the subcontractor's past performance in support of the awardee's "very good" with "low risk" ratings under the quality of service, cost control, and business relations subfactors to the past performance factor.
GAO will examine an agency's evaluation of an offeror's past performance only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations, since determining the relative merits of an offeror's past performance is a matter within the contracting agency's discretion.
Based upon a review of the record, GAO cannot find reasonable the agency's determination that the awardee's subcontractor is a "significant" or "critical" subcontractor based upon the subcontractor's involvement in the proposed effort. The record of the evaluation provides only that the listed subcontractors, including the awardee's, were "performing similar and major functions and/or a significant portion of the workload," and fails to provide any analysis or explanation as to why the awardee's proposed subcontractor was considered either significant or critical.
GAO recommended that the agency reopen discussions, request and review revised proposals, evaluate those submissions consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and make a new source selection. In the event a proposal other than the awardee's is found to represent the best value to the government, the contract awarded to the awardee should be terminated and a contract should be awarded to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the best value in accordance with the terms of the RFP. The protest is sustained.
5. Highmark Medicare Services, Inc.; Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC; National Government Services, Inc., B-401062.10; B-401062.11; B-401062.12; B-401062.5; B-401062.6; B-401062.7; B-401062.8; B-401062.9, October 29, 2010
Link: GAO Opinion
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Disposition: Protests denied.
Keywords: Clarifications; Discussions; Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)
General Counsel P.C. Highlight: Clarifications are "limited exchanges" between an agency and an offeror for the purpose of eliminating minor uncertainties or irregularities in a proposal, and do not give an offeror the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal. Discussions, on the other hand, occur when an agency communicates with an offeror for the purpose of obtaining information essential to determine the acceptability of a proposal, or provides the offeror with an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal in some material respect.
Highmark Medicare Services, Inc. (Highmark), Cahaba Government Benefit Administrators, LLC (Cahaba), and National Government Services, Inc., (NGS) protest the award of a contract to CIGNA Government Services, LLC (CIGNA) under a request for proposals (RFP), issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to obtain a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide certain health insurance benefit administrative services.
This protest follows the protest discussed above (see CIGNA Government Services, LLC , File: B-401062.2; B-401062.3 (May 6, 2009)). GAO issued a decision sustaining CIGNA's protest, finding that the agency had failed to conduct meaningful discussions with CIGNA regarding its proposed costs for printing and postage services and had improperly considered one of Highmark's (the original awardee of the contract) proposed subcontractor's past performance in its evaluation of Highmark's proposal under the solicitation's past performance factor, and that the source selection authority (SSA) had otherwise acted unreasonably in selecting Highmark's proposal for award. GAO recommended that the agency reopen discussions, request and review revised proposals, evaluate those submissions consistent with the terms of the solicitation, and make a new source selection.
The agency notified CIGNA, Highmark, Cahaba, and NGS that the agency was reopening discussions on a limited basis pertaining only to the proposed costs for the printing and postage services, and that proposal revisions in response to discussions would be limited to proposed printing and postage costs. CIGNA filed a second protest with GAO, challenging the adequacy of the agency's proposed corrective action. The agency responded by informing GAO and the protester that the agency was "still evaluating the full range of corrective actions required by the decision" issued by GAO sustaining the protest, and that "the scope of discussions has not yet been definitively established." In light of the agency's representation that it was still considering the corrective action to be taken, including the appropriate scope of discussions, GAO dismissed the protest as premature.
The agency subsequently determined that it would conduct discussions addressing "all open weaknesses, and significant weaknesses," as identified during the previous evaluation, and allow CIGNA, Highmark, Cahaba, and NGS to submit revised proposals. The contracting officer, who also served as the SSA here, ultimately "concluded that the J15 offerors are essentially technically equal" and that as such, "the most probable cost and fee becomes the deciding factor in determining who offers the best value." The contracting officer determined that CIGNA's proposal, with an evaluated cost that was more than $14 million lower than that of the next lowest cost proposal, appeared to be in line for award. The agency, after engaging in a lengthy examination of whether an award to CIGNA would pose an organizational conflict of interest (OCI), ultimately selected CIGNA's proposal for award. The agency awarded a contract to CIGNA for the J15 MAC services, and after requesting and receiving debriefings, HMS, Cahaba, and NGS filed these protests.
The protesters first argue that certain exchanges between the agency and CIGNA that were related to CIGNA's staffing plan, which was evaluated under the staffing plan subfactor of the personnel evaluation factor, constituted discussions, thereby requiring discussions with Highmark, Cahaba, and NGS.
The solicitation included detailed proposal preparation instructions, and, as relevant here, stated that each offeror "shall submit a staffing plan that presents its methodologies for providing qualified personnel in sufficient numbers for each CLIN [contract line item number] of the contract and for ensuring its proposed team, including subcontractors, has the skills to meet the requirements stated in the SOW."
CIGNA responded in a timely manner. However, given the period of time that had elapsed from the submission of CIGNA's response, CIGNA was asked for "clarification to confirm information provided by CIGNA" in its August 2009 RFPR "regarding CIGNA's proposed staffing plan." This letter noted that it was for purposes of "clarification only, and should not be viewed as discussions, or an opportunity to revise or modify [CIGNA's] proposal." The letter further stated that CIGNA's "response should merely confirm 'yes, the above statement is still accurate' or 'no, the statement is no longer accurate'" and that "[n]o additional explanations, rationale, or narrative should be provided with [CIGNA's] response." CIGNA responded "Yes, the above statement is still accurate."
FAR sect. 15.306 describes a range of exchanges that may take place between an agency and an offeror during negotiated procurements. Clarifications are "limited exchanges" between an agency and an offeror for the purpose of eliminating minor uncertainties or irregularities in a proposal, and do not give an offeror the opportunity to revise or modify its proposal. Discussions, on the other hand, occur when an agency communicates with an offeror for the purpose of obtaining information essential to determine the acceptability of a proposal, or provides the offeror with an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal in some material respect. When an agency conducts discussions with one offeror, it must conduct discussions with all other offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range. It is the actions of the parties that determine whether discussions have been held and not the characterization of the communications by the agency. In situations where there is a dispute regarding whether communications between an agency and an offeror constituted discussions, the acid test is whether an offeror has been afforded an opportunity to revise or modify its proposal. Communications that do not permit an offeror to revise or modify its proposal, but rather request that the offeror confirm what the offeror has already committed to do in its proposal, are clarifications and not discussions.
Here, the agency requested that CIGNA confirm that a statement made in its RFPR remained accurate, and nothing more. The agency's communication with CIGNA specifically requested that CIGNA provide a "yes" or "no" answer, which CIGNA did. That is, the agency's communication did not permit a revision or modification by CIGNA of its RFPR, nor did CIGNA respond with anything other than a confirmation of its RFPR. GAO is unaware of any authority for the proposition that a confirmation of a proposal, absent more, constitutes discussions. The fact that the response mitigated a possible risk in implementing the contract that CIGNA had identified in its proposal did not make this exchange discussions, given that during the exchange CIGNA provided what was in essence a one word response that only confirmed, and did not modify or amend, its FRPR.
GAO reviewed all of the protesters' numerous general and specific arguments regarding the propriety of the agency's evaluation of the protesters' and awardee's proposals under the non‑cost evaluation factors. GAO did not find the agency's evaluation of proposals under the non‑cost factors to be unreasonable or inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme.
Among many other allegations, the protesters argue that the contracting officer's conclusion in the source selection decision that the RFPRs of CIGNA, Highmark, Cahaba, and NGS were "essentially technically equal" was unreasonable.
Section 15.308 of the FAR requires, in the context of a negotiated procurement, that a source selection decision be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all of the solicitation's source selection criteria. The FAR further requires that while the SSA "may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment." Source selection decisions must be documented, and include the rationale and any business judgments and tradeoffs made or relied upon by the SSA. In determining which proposal represents the best value to the agency, an agency may reasonably determine that the benefit of specific features set forth in a proposal are not worth any additional cost associated with the proposal, as long as that determination remains consistent with the solicitation's evaluation and source selection criteria. In reviewing an agency's source selection decision, GAO examines the supporting record to determine whether the decision was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented.
The 31-page source selection decision, prepared by the contracting officer in his role as the SSA, begins by describing, the various evaluated strengths and weaknesses of each offerors' RFPR under each of the evaluation factors and subfactors. The source selection decision continues by explaining the basis for the contracting officer's agreement with the TEPC's conclusion that the offerors' RFPRs "are essentially technically equal" in that "no proposal contains a meaningful advantage that was not otherwise balanced by, encompassed in, or provided for in the other offerors' proposal[s]." The contracting officer's source selection decision notes in this regard that while "each proposal may be superior to the others in one or more areas, and that the proposals offer different advantages, overall there is essentially no meaningful difference in what they have to offer." The contracting officer also testified at length during a hearing before GAO about the process by which he concluded that these proposals--with their disparate evaluated strengths and weaknesses--were essentially technically equal.
Based upon GAO's review of the record, including the testimony of the contracting officer, GAO finds reasonable the contracting officer's ultimate conclusion that the RFPRs of CIGNA, Highmark, Cahaba, and NGS were essentially technically equal, and the protesters' views to the contrary to reflect nothing more than their disagreement with the contracting officer's judgment.
Highmark lastly argues that the award to CIGNA "created an impaired objectivity" OCI that the contracting officer "never attempted to address or mitigate." The responsibility for determining whether a conflict exists rests with the procuring agency. In making this determination, the FAR expressly directs contracting officers to examine the particular facts associated with each situation, paying consideration to the nature of the contracts involved, and further directs contracting officers to obtain the advice of counsel and appropriate technical specialists before exercising their own sound discretion in determining whether an OCI exists. In reviewing bid protests that challenge an agency's conflicts determinations, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has mandated application of the "arbitrary and capricious" standard established pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. See Axiom Res. Mgmt, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Axiom, the Court of Appeals noted that "the FAR recognizes that the identification of OCIs, and the evaluation of mitigation proposals are fact-specific inquiries that require the exercise of considerable discretion." The standard of review employed by GAO in reviewing a contracting officer's OCI determination mirrors the standard required by Axiom. In this regard, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether an OCI exists, GAO will not substitute our judgment for the agency's, absent clear evidence that the agency's conclusion is unreasonable.
The record reflects that the contracting officer (prior to his receipt of the TEPC report or his preparing of his source selection statement) conducted and documented an OCI analysis on each offeror. The scope of the OCI analysis included "the performance or participation by offerors, offerors' ownership, offerors' affiliates or offerors' successors in interest as a prime contractor, subcontractor, co-sponsor, joint venture, consultant, contractor team arrangement member, or in any similar capacity." The contracting officer concluded as a result of this analysis that no OCIs existed that "were either significant or would preclude the award of the J15 contract to any of the offerors."
The record further reflects that once the contracting officer identified CIGNA as the apparent awardee, he "conducted a further analysis of CIGNA, and its successful subcontractor, to ensure that there were not OCI considerations that needed to be resolved prior to award." As indicated, the record reflects that the agency performed a comprehensive OCI analysis. The contracting officer, as well as the agency's MAC Program Management staff, OAGM Compliance Office, and Office of General Counsel, all participated in the OCI analysis, and clearly gave "meaningful consideration to whether an OCI exists" with regard to CIGNA's performance of the J15 MAC contract. Based on GAO's review of the record, GAO concluded that the contracting officer's OCI analysis was reasonable. The protests are denied.
