Skip to main content

[Protest of Navy Contract Award Alleging Conflict of Interest]

B-215798 Published: Jan 30, 1985. Publicly Released: Jan 30, 1985.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

A firm protested the award of a contract to another firm under a Navy request for proposals (RFP) to perform scientific, engineering, analytical, technical, and prototype-fabrication services in support of naval weapons systems. Prior to issuing the RFP, the contracting officer recognized that a potential organization conflict of interest existed because contract performance might require the successful offerer to review proprietary data of hardware producers under existing contracts with the Navy, so clauses concerning conflict of interests were included in the RFP. The protester contended that: (1) the contract award to another offerer resulted in an organizational conflict of interest and would adversely affect the offerer's ability to perform the contract; (2) the awardee would derive a competitive advantage in future procurements from receiving proprietary data under the present contract; and (3) the awardee submitted a below-cost offer. GAO determined that: (1) the protest involving awardee compliance with RFP requirements concerned the awardee's responsibility and would not be considered absent circumstances not present in this case; (2) the protest that the awardee would derive competitive advantage in future procurements from receiving proprietary data was premature since the allegation did not concern the award under the instant solicitation; and (3) the cost analysis performed by the agency was proper because the agency demonstrated that its analysis was reasonable and the protester failed to dispute the agency's explanation. In addition, GAO held that the protester's allegation that the RFP conflict-of-interest provision did not provide adequate protection to data owners and the government concerned a defect that was apparent on the face of the RFP. A protest that involves such a defect must be filed with GAO prior to the closing date for receipt of proposals. Since the protester failed to comply with this requirement, the protest was deemed untimely. Accordingly, the protest was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Bid evaluationBidder responsibilityCompetitive procurementConflict of interestsContract award protestsContract performanceCost analysisNaval procurementProprietary dataUntimely protestsSolicitations