Competitive sourcing

(4.) Jones/Hill Joint Venture--Costs, Comp. Gen. B-286194.3, Mar. 27, 2001, 2001 CPD [paragraph] 62. As part of its conclusion that Jones/Hill's initial protest was clearly meritorious, the GAO explained how agencies should conduct a competitive sourcing studies properly, at great length. id at 9-13.

(5.) Id. at 7. The agency had agreed that its corrective action would examine various strengths in Jones/Hill's proposal that had been identified but not considered, and that it would adjust its in-house plan as necessary to account for those strengths "that predict a higher quality performance (as opposed to 'strengths' such as a well-written proposal)." Id. at 7 (quoting the Agency's Post-ADR Comments, at 10). The agency also stated that it would adjust the in-house management plan as necessary and prepare a detailed written justification of its conclusion. Id.

(6.) Comp. Gen. B-286194.4, B-286194.5, B-286194.6, Dec. 5, 2001, 2001 CPD [paragraph] 194.

(7.) Id. at 6. Jones/Hill argued that: (1) the agency had unreasonably determined that the MEO could perform the work required with the number of personnel proposed in the in-house plan; (2) that the in-house management plan provided for the performance of certain tasks by individuals who were not part of the MEO; and (3) that the agency's determination that the MEO and Jones/Hill's proposal offered the same level of performance and performance quality was unreasonable. Id. The GAO decision sustained Jones/Hill's protest on these grounds. Id. at 18-19, 21.

(8.) Id. at 7. The CA team was comprised of Navy personnel assisted by a private consultant, E.L. Hamm, Inc. Id.

(9.) Id. at 8. The CA team leader, who participated in drafting and developing the PWS, became the MEO team leader. E.L. Hamm, considered a "co-producer" and "active coparticipant in the preparation of the PWS," became a "full participant" in the MEO team's development of the in-house proposal. Id.

(10.) Id. at 18-19.

(11.) More specifically, the FAR provides:

   Government business shall be conducted in a manner above reproach
   and, except as authorized by statute or regulation, with complete
   impartiality and with preferential treatment for none. Transactions
   relating to the expenditure of public funds require the highest
   degree of public trust and an impeccable standard of conduct. The
   general rule is to avoid strictly any conflict of interest or even
   the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor
   relationships.

GENERAL SERVS. ADMIN. ET AL., FEDERAL ACQUISITIONS REG. 3.101-1 (July 2002) [hereinafter FAR].

(12.) Jones/Hill Joint Venture--Costs, Comp. Gen. B-286194.3, Mar. 27, 2001, 2001 CPD [paragraph] 62, at 9 (citing DZS/Baker LLC; Morrison Knudsen Corp., Comp. Gen. B-281224, Jan. 12, 1999, 99-1 CPD [paragraph] 19, at 4; Battelle Memorial Inst., Comp. Gen. B-278673, Feb. 27, 1998, 98-1 CPD [paragraph] 107, at 6-7).

(13.) Id. at 10. Such cases include situations in which a firm has access to non-public information as part of its performance of a government contract, and where that information may provide the firm an unfair competitive advantage in a later competition for a government contract. Id. (citing FAR, supra note 11, at 9.505-4; Aetna Gov't Health Plans, Inc.; Foundation Health Fed. Servs., Inc., Comp. Gen. B-254397.15, July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD [paragraph] 129, at 12).