The Government Accountability Office (GAO) finally released its full (albeit redacted) decision sustaining part of Pemco Aviation's protest of the Air Force's award of a KC-135 maintanence contract to Boeing. What's really interesting are the parts of the protest the GAO did not sustain. And even more interesting is what the GAO said (or really did not say) in its press release on this decision last month, just days before the New Year.
Pemco argued that "the agency’s evaluation of proposals was flawed with regard to past performance, mission capability, and cost/price, and that the agency failed to properly consider alleged organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) and an alleged violation of the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 41 U.S.C. sect. 423 (2000)," the GAO decision states.
The GAO sustained "the protest with regard to the agency’s evaluation of cost/price, but we deny the challenges to the agency’s evaluation of past performance and mission capability, as well as to alleged OCIs and the alleged violation of procurement integrity provisions."
The reader's digest of the juiciest parts of Pemco's protest--which were not sustained by the GAO--and the GAO bid protest analysis of them is as follows:
1) Alleged Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI): Pemco alleges that Boeing was a consultant to the Air Force on the KC-135 maintanence contract, Air Force denies that Boeing was used as a consultant (though Boeing was listed as "non-government advisor support" in the Request For Proposals), Pemco then says one of its employees heard from a Boeing employee that the Air Force was lying to the GAO on this point, but offers no evidence beyond that. GAO dismissed this because it was deemed untimely and there was a lack of evidence; and
2) Alleged Violation of the Procurement Integrity Provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act: Because Pemco and Boeing were formerly teammates in planning for a bid, Pemco argued that Boeing inappropriately used Pemco proprietary information to develop its independent bid when they split. GAO said that because a government employee didn't give Boeing Pemco's info and Boeing did not wrongly obtain the data that point of Pemco's protests couldn't be sustained given the language of the Procurement Integrity Act.
Finally, there was nothing in this decision which seems, at this point, to shed much light on the GAO's vague statement in its earlier press release (pdf) regarding the supplemental protest Pemco made on the alleged conflict of interest of the late Charles D. Riechers, principal deputy assistant secretary for Air Force acquisition. The GAO press release states:
Pemco’s protest submissions included allegations of bias with regard to Charles Riechers, the source selection authority for this procurement. In mid-October, Mr. Riechers was found dead, an apparent suicide. The Air Force subsequently advised our Office that both local law enforcement and federal government investigative authorities are conducting an ongoing investigation into “the root cause” of Mr. Riecher’s death; it is our understanding that this investigation will encompass matters that may have a bearing on Pemco’s allegations of bias. In light of the ongoing investigation, and consistent with this Office’s past practice, our decision does not express any opinion regarding Pemco’s bias allegations. [italics added]
Riechers is believed to have committed suicide after Pemco made its supplemental protest arguing that his short-lived tenure at Commonwealth Research Institute (CRI), which had done subcontract work for Boeing, created a conflict of interest which may have affected or could have the appearance of affecting Riecher's Air Force work on the KC-135 maintanence contract, which fell under his purview.
Reuters reported that in a letter to Sue Payton, head of Air Force acquisition, Riechers "expressed remorse at having created a new acquisition scandal for the Air Force reminiscent of the earlier one involving Darleen Druyun," according to a source, who spoke on condition of anonymity to Reuters.
The Washington Post first reported on Riecher's job at CRI, which was for work related to his future position at the Air Force, while he was waiting for the White House to confirm him for the position. There is debate over the appropriateness of that arrangement. The New York Times reported that privately, "officials acknowledged that the inquiries surrounding Mr. Riechers had uncovered questionable practices in a proliferating and poorly regulated side of Pentagon procurement that involves contracting for temporary consultants," often known as science, engineering and technical assistance contracts for individuals who work in the private sector.
Riechers also presided over Air Force acquisition of its KC-X future tanker and CSAR-X combat search and rescue replacement helicopter programs which have both been controversial.
Riechers was known as a straight shooter and for his integrity, numerous media outlets have reported.
-- Nick Schwellenbach
Comments