About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


B-416557.3 1 (2019-02-04)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadvmu0001 and id is 1 raw text is: GAO U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 441 G St. N.W. Comptroller General Washington, DC 20548 of the United States ....................................................................................................................... DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to Decision a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of: ActioNet, Inc.--Costs File: B-416557.3 Date: February 4, 2019 Gregory H. Petkoff, Esq., and Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., Rachael K. Plymale, Esq., and R. Locke Bell, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies, the intervenor. William B. Blake, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Reimbursement of costs of filing and pursuing protest of agency's organizational conflict of interest evaluation is recommended where the agency unduly delayed taking corrective action when a reasonable agency inquiry into protest allegations would have shown that the agency failed to meaningfully evaluate organizational conflicts of interest. DECISION ActioNet, Inc. of Vienna, Virginia, requests that our Office recommend that it be reimbursed the costs associated with filing and pursuing its protest (B-416557, B-416557.2) challenging the issuance of a task order to ASRC Federal Data Network Technologies (AFDNT) of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 140D0418Q0172, issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI), Interior Business Center, Acquisition Services Directorate, for Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) sustainment and systems integration support services. ActioNet asserted that the agency incorrectly determined that it had a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI), and alleged disparate treatment with respect to the OCI. The protester also challenged various aspects of the agency's evaluation of quotations. We grant the request as it pertains to the protester's challenge to the agency's OCI evaluation.