Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a 

GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been 

approved for public release. 

Decision 

Matter of: Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. 

File: B-400787.2; B-400861 

Date: February 23, 2009 

John G. Horan, Esq., Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Jayson A. Carey, Esq., and Courtney J. 

Edmonds, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. 

William A. Roberts, III, Esq., and Richard B. O’Keeffe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Fluor 

Intercontinental, Inc., an intervenor. 

Major Walter R. Dukes, Terrence Edwards, Esq., and Vera Meza, Esq., Department of 

the Army, for the agency. 

John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Agency’s disqualification of the protester from further participation in two task order 

competitions for combat support services issued under an indefinite-delivery/ 

indefinite-quantity contract was reasonable, where an employee of the protester 

improperly accessed source selection sensitive and proprietary information, and the 

protester, in response to a request from the agency that the employee be isolated 

from the two open task order competitions for which the improperly accessed 

proprietary information would be competitively useful, refused to do so. 

DECISION 

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. (KBR) of Houston, Texas, protests its 

disqualification from further participation under request for proposals (RFP) issued 

by the Department of the Army, for the award of task orders under the Logistics Civil 

Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) IV contracts, for the operation and maintenance 

of the Udairi airfield in Kuwait (RFP No. W52P1J-08-R-0126), and for various combat 

support services related to Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) 

repair and calibration (RFP No. W52P1J-08-R-0189). 

We deny the protests. 

The Army awarded three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts under the 

LOGCAP IV solicitation for LOGCAP Combat Support and Combat Support Services 

augmentation on a global basis to Fluor Intercontinental, Inc., DynCorp 
International, and KBR. The LOGCAP IV solicitation advised offerors that multiple 

task orders would be issued, and that solicitations for these task orders would be 

competed among the LOGCAP IV contractors, which would be required to submit a 

proposal for every task order solicitation issued. 

The agency issued to the three LOGCAP IV contractors task order RFP -0126 on 

September 24 and RFP -0189 on September 30. The RFPs stated that the agency 

expected “to make one task order award” under each solicitation on a cost-plusaward-fee basis to the offeror whose proposal was determined to provide the best 

value to the Government, based upon the evaluation factors, listed in descending 

order of importance, of technical/management approach, past performance, and 

cost/price. RFP -0126 at 2, 11, 22-23; RFP -0189 at 2, 11, 22-23. Each solicitation 

added that “[t]his is a best value competition under the provisions of FAR [Federal 

Acquisition Regulation §] 16.505,” which pertains to the placement and award of task 

orders. RFP -0126 at 22; RFP -0189 at 22. 

The record reflects that at 6:35 p.m. on September 23, 2008 (prior to the issuance of 

these RFPs), the cognizant contracting officer sent an e-mail entitled “Past 

Performance Clarification” to KBR’s LOGCAP IV contracts manager and to KBR’s 

LOGCAP IV program manager. The intent of this e-mail was to “communicate 

adverse past performance information to KBR, and provide that company with an 

opportunity to comment.” Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Agency Memorandum for 

Record by Army’s LOGCAP Contracting Chief (Oct. 28, 2008), at 1. However, the 

contracting officer inadvertently attached to this e-mail a file entitled “Cost Price 

Evaluation Summary Document,” which contained source selection sensitive 

information as well as proprietary information of KBR, Fluor, and DynCorp. The 

record evidences that this summary included relatively detailed information 

regarding, for example, the labor, material, equipment, and subcontract costs, as well 

as award fees and fixed fees proposed by KBR, Fluor, and DynCorp, for the 

performance of another LOGCAP IV task order.1

 AR, Tab 7, Cost Price Evaluation 

Summary. The summary, in addition to including information regarding the relevant 

independent government cost estimate, also included information regarding KBR’s, 

Fluor’s, and DynCorp’s proposed general and administrative costs, indirect costs, 

and labor hours for U.S. citizens/expatriates, host country nationals, and third 

country nationals. Id. The cost price summary further included the narrative agency 

analysis of the offerors’ proposed cost elements. 

 

1

 The record reflects that the proprietary and source selection sensitive information 

in the e-mail attachment “Cost Price Evaluation Summary” pertained to LOGCAP IV 

task order solicitation W52P1J-08-R-0192, concerning LOGCAP IV services to be 

provided in Afghanistan. AR at 1; Tab 8, Contracting Officer Letter to KBR (Nov. 7, 

2008), at 1. 

Page 2 B-400787.2; B-400861 
The contracting officer, “[u]pon viewing the sent message approximately a minute 

after its transmission . . . realized that he had attached the wrong file,” and 

“immediately sent a recall instruction through the . . . server.” AR, Tab 7, 

Memorandum for Record by Army LOGCAP Contracting Chief (Oct. 28, 2008), at 1. 

The contracting officer then placed a phone call to the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts 

manager, and “instructed [the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager] to immediately 

delete and destroy all copies of [the contracting officer’s] e-mail addressed to [the 

KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager and program manager] subject: Past 

Performance Clarification and time date stamped 6:35 p.m.” AR, Tab 7, Contracting 

Officer Confirmation Letter to KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager (Sept. 23, 2008), 

at 1. Additionally, the record reflects that at 6:40 p.m., the contracting officer sent an 

e-mail to the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager and KBR LOGCAP IV program 

manager stating “Do not open the subject e-mail I sent you. Shift Delete 

Immediately.” AR, Tab 3, Contracting Officer’s E-mail to KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts 

Manager and KBR LOGCAP IV Program Manager (Sept. 23, 2008). 

KBR’s LOGCAP IV contracts manager responded later on September 23 by e-mail 

that he had complied with the contracting officer’s direction to delete the e-mail 

without opening, saving, downloading, or printing it. AR, Tab 7, Memorandum for 

Record by Army’s LOGCAP Contracting Chief (Oct. 28, 2008), at 1; KBR LOGCAP IV 

Contracts Manager’s Initial Statement; KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager’s 

Affidavit (Oct. 6, 2008). KBR’s LOGCAP IV program manager responded the next 

morning by e-mail that he too had complied with the contracting officer’s request to 

delete the e-mail and its attachment without opening, saving, downloading, or 

printing it. AR, Tab 7, Memorandum for Record by Army’s LOGCAP Contracting 

Chief (Oct. 28, 2008), at 1; KBR LOGCAP IV Program Manager’s Initial Statement; 

KBR LOGCAP IV Program Manager’s Affidavit (Oct. 6, 2008) . 

The contracting officer next sent a letter to KBR’s LOGCAP IV contracts manager, 

dated September 23 and transmitted by e-mail on September 24, that confirmed the 

contracting officer’s telephone conversation with the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts 

manager, and instructed KBR that it was “critical” that KBR provide written 

assurance to the agency that the contracting officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail 

and attachment had been destroyed; that all copies of the e-mail and attachment on 

any personal computers, servers, or other devices to which the e-mail or attachment 

may have been forwarded, saved, or downloaded had been deleted; and that any 

hard copies made of the e-mail and attachment had been destroyed. AR, Tab 7, 

Contracting Officer Confirmation Letter to KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager 

(Sept. 23, 2008), at 1. This letter also requested that KBR furnish an affidavit or 

sworn statement from any KBR employee that had access to the contracting officer’s 

6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail or attachment, stating whether that employee opened, 

copied, printed, or viewed the e-mail or its attachment, and an affidavit or sworn 

statement that all copies of the e-mail and attachment had been deleted or destroyed. 

Id.

Page 3 B-400787.2; B-400861 
KBR’s LOGCAP IV contracts manager e-mailed his and KBR’s LOGCAP IV program 

manager’s statements to the contracting officer on September 29. The contracts 

manager’s statement provided that he had not opened the contracting officer’s 6:35 

p.m., September 23 e-mail, and that he had deleted the e-mail and the attachment 

from his “Blackberry and laptop” computer. AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts 

Manager’s Statement. The contracts manager added in this e-mail that he had 

requested an electronic search “of all KBR email servers” and the removal of the 

contracting officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail. AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV 

Contracts Manager’s E-mail to Contracting Officer (Sept. 29, 2008). 

The KBR LOGCAP IV program manager’s statement provided that he had “opened” 

the contracting officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and the attachment on his 

“Blackberry,” but that he “could not make sense out of what the attachment was 

about due to everything being jumbled due to the small screen size of the 

Blackberry.” AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Program Manager’s Statement. The 

program manager continued by stating that he closed the contracting officer’s 

6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and its attachment, and then saw another e-mail from 

the contracting officer asking that the previous e-mail and attachment be deleted. 

The program manager’s statement provided that he did not, however, take any 

further action at this time. Rather, the program manager stated that the next 

morning, when he arrived at his office, he noticed that “there was a call light on my 

phone.” The telephone message was from the contracting officer, and the program 

manager stated that, as instructed by the message, he deleted the contracting 

officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail from his laptop computer, and then sent the 

contracting officer an e-mail stating that he had deleted the e-mail. Id.

KBR’s LOGCAP IV program manager’s statement continued by explaining that later 

that day he remembered that the contracting officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail 

and attachment remained on the program manager’s Blackberry. The program 

manager’s statement reports that he forwarded the contracting officer’s 6:35 p.m., 

September 23 e-mail and attachment to his “laptop because [he] was curious as to 

what [the contracting officer] had sent out.” AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Program 

Manager’s Statement. The program manager stated that he opened the contracting 

officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and attachment, but shortly thereafter “had 

second thoughts about reading the document and did not read it.” Id. The program 

manager continued by stating that he then closed the attachment and deleted it, and 

that while he recalls that “the attachment was a cost analysis of some contract,” he 

knows nothing else concerning the contents of the attachment and that he had 

“gained no information or data which could give KBR or anyone any kind of 

competitive advantage.” Id. 

After receiving and reviewing the statements of the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts 

manager and program manager, the contracting officer contacted the KBR LOGCAP 

IV contracts manager, and informed him that the statements needed to be 

resubmitted because they were not “sworn” as requested, and that given the “content 

Page 4 B-400787.2; B-400861 
of the statements,” it was “necessary to obtain a more detailed account of events 

relating to this matter.” AR, Tab 7, Contracting Officer Letter to KBR LOGCAP IV 

Contracts Manager, at 1. The contracting officer’s letter (at 1) also stated: 

Further, based on the information contained in [the KBR LOGCAP IV 

program manager’s] statement it appears necessary that measures be 

taken to isolate him from the LOGCAP IV program until this matter has 

been resolved with the affected parties. Despite having read the 

contracting officer’s explicit direction not to read and to delete the 

e-mail containing proprietary information, [the KBR LOGCAP IV 

program manager] proceeded to open the document. 

Please provide me with your plan to mitigate the potential competitive 

harm associated with [the KBR LOGCAP IV program manager’s] 

viewing of the document in question. 

The KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager responded by providing, along with a cover 

letter dated October 7, affidavits executed by the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts 

manager and program manager. AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager’s 

and Program Manager’s Affidavits (Oct. 6, 2008). With minor exception, the 

affidavits essentially confirmed the events described in the statements previously 

submitted by KBR. However, the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager’s cover letter 

accompanying the affidavits noted that “the statements certify that the e-mail 

erroneously sent by you was not read” by either the contracts manager or program 

manager, that they deleted the e-mail from their computers and Blackberries 

“without saving, forwarding or downloading it,” and that because of this, “KBR 

categorically denies any assertion that KBR enjoys a competitive advantage owing to 

the ‘viewing’ of your erroneously sent e-mail by any KBR employee.” AR, Tab 7, KBR 

LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager Letter to Contracting Officer (Oct. 6, 2008). The 

letter added here that “[a]s was made clear in the statements submitted to you on 

September 29, 2008, neither of the intended recipients read the offending message 

nor its attached contents,” and that “[t]herefore, neither has anything more than a 

cursory knowledge about the message or its contents, so there is no potential 

competitive harm posed by the message you erroneously sent.” Id. The next day the 

KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager notified the contracting officer by letter with an 

attached affidavit that the “e-mail errantly sent to KBR personnel on September 23rd

titled (Subject: Past Performance Clarification) has been properly deleted from 

Blackberries, computers and email servers.” AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts 

Manager Letter to Contracting Officer (Oct. 7, 2008). 

By letter dated October 23 to KBR’s LOGCAP IV contracts manager, the agency 

noted that the contracting officer had “requested that KBR provide a plan to mitigate 

the potential competitive harm associated with [the KBR LOGCAP IV program 

manager’s] viewing of the document in question.” Protest, exh. G, Contracting 

Officer’s Letter to KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager (Oct. 23, 2008). This letter 

noted that KBR’s response “was silent on this matter,” and requested that KBR 

Page 5 B-400787.2; B-400861 
provide “[a] certified statement of what actions it has taken to isolate [the KBR 

LOGCAP IV program manager] from the LOGCAP IV program, specifically the Udairi 

Airfield and TMDE proposal development process,” and “[a] certified statement 

specifically addressing its intended actions to mitigate the potential competitive 

harm to future task order competitions associated with [the KBR LOGCAP IV 

program manager’s] viewing of the document in question.” Id.

KBR responded to the agency’s request the following day, stating that it “has 

provided a comprehensive response to this issue in full compliance” with the 

contracting officer’s instructions. AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager 

Letter to Agency (Oct. 24, 2008), at 1. KBR’s response continued by providing, with 

regard to KBR’s LOGCAP IV program manager, that “his statement evidences the 

uncontroverted fact that he read neither the e-mail in question, nor its attachment, 

and gained no knowledge from their contents.” Id. KBR added that in its view 

“maintaining the integrity of the procurement process does not call for [the KBR 

LOGCAP IV program manager’s] isolation from the program,” and that “[i]solating 

[the KBR LOGCAP IV program manager] from participation in the LOGCAP IV 

program could only be viewed as a punitive act.” Id. at 2. KBR’s response concluded 

that “[g]iven the facts as we see them and as fully presented to you, certified 

statements to the effect you requested are uncalled for.” Id.

The agency considered the information provided by KBR, as well as its own records, 

in analyzing the impact of the release of the information contained in the contracting 

officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and attachment to KBR’s LOGCAP IV 

contracts manager and program manager. The agency found that the competitive 

process under the solicitation for the LOGCAP IV task order for which the e-mail 

attachment’s cost/price evaluation summary had been prepared could not have been 

harmed, given that award under that solicitation had been made without discussions, 

and KBR thus had not had an opportunity to revise its proposal after the cost/price 

evaluation summary had been disclosed through the e-mail and attachment. AR, 

Tab 7, Memorandum for Record by Army’s LOGCAP Contracting Chief (Oct. 28, 

2008), at 3. The agency also determined that the information in the cost/price 

evaluation summary pertaining to the agency’s evaluation method was “no more 

descriptive than what could be released in a post award debriefing,” and therefore 

would “not have a harmful effect on future competitions.” Id.

However, the agency also found that the “potential release of proprietary 

information poses the potential for harm in the competitive process under future 

LOGCAP IV task order competitions, including those for Udairi Airfield and TMDE.” 

Id. at 3. Specifically, the agency found that the information contained in the 

cost/price evaluation summary e-mail attachment “could be used to improve a 

contractor’s understanding of its competitors’ strategy and approach,” given that the 

“[i]nformation provided included fee structure, overhead rates, hours and average 

labor rates” broken down by U.S. citizens/expatriates, host country nationals, and 

third country nationals. Id. at 4. 

Page 6 B-400787.2; B-400861 
The agency noted that although it found the KBR LOGCAP IV contracts manager’s 

statements indicating that he had not gained access to the information in the 

6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and attachment “credible and convincing,” the 

account of events provided by the KBR LOGCAP IV program manager was cause for 

concern. Id. The agency noted that it was unable to reconcile the KBR LOGCAP IV 

program manager’s actions, that is, transmitting the 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail 

and attachment from his Blackberry to his laptop and opening it, despite the 

contracting officer’s clear direction to delete the e-mail and attachment and despite 

the fact that the program manager had already informed the contracting officer that 

he had deleted the e-mail and attachment, with the program manager’s assertion that 

he had closed the e-mail and attachment without reading it. Id. The contracting 

officer determined that, given the record as a whole, the information set forth in the 

6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail and attachment may have been compromised, and 

that “[a]t the very least, an appearance exists that proprietary information was 

compromised, causing harm to the integrity of the procurement process.” Id. The 

contracting officer concluded that because of the KBR program manager’s “integral 

role as the LOGCAP IV program manager,” and because “KBR did not take steps to 

isolate [the KBR LOGCAP IV program manager] from the ongoing LOGCAP IV task 

order competition process,” it was “necessary that KBR be excluded from 

consideration for award” of the Udairi Airfield and TMDE task orders, both “of 

which were open during the period of 24 September through 22 October 2008.” Id. 

The agency informed KBR of its determination in this regard by letter dated 

November 7, and these protests followed.2

 AR, Tab 8, Contracting Officer 

Determination of Actions Required under the Procurement Integrity Act and Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 3.104 (Nov. 7, 2008). 

KBR argues that its disqualification from consideration for award of the Udairi 

Airfield or TMDE task orders by the agency was improper. KBR primarily argues 

that because the agency did not specifically find that KBR had “obtained an unfair 

competitive advantage” as the result of its LOGCAP IV program manager’s actions, 

the agency was precluded from disqualifying KBR from these task order 

competitions. Protests at 11; see Protester’s Comments at 15. The protester 

contends in this regard that the statements and affidavits of KBR’s LOGCAP IV 

contracts manager and program manager “demonstrate that no one from KBR 

reviewed, retained or used the competition sensitive information,” and there is thus a 

 

2

 On the same day that KBR filed these protests, it informed the agency “in direct 

response to your letter of November 7,” that KBR had instructed its LOGCAP IV 

program manager that he “would have no involvement with, and take no part in, any 

of KBR’s LOGCAP IV competitive efforts,” nor would he “engage in consultation on, 

or provide input or guidance relating to, any facet of KBR’s efforts under the 

LOGCAP IV competitive process.” AR, Tab 9, KBR LOGCAP IV Contract Manager’s 

Letter to Agency (Nov. 17, 2008). 

Page 7 B-400787.2; B-400861 
“complete lack of evidence” to support the agency’s conclusion that competitively 

sensitive information may have been compromised, or that “an appearance exists 

that proprietary information was compromised, causing harm to the integrity of the 

procurement process.” Protester’s Comments at 15-16; see AR, Tab 7, Memorandum 

for Record by Army’s LOGCAP Contracting Chief (Oct. 28, 2008), at 4. The protester 

adds that in any event, the agency “improperly imposed the most severe sanction of 

exclusion from the TMDE and Udairi Task Order competitions without consideration 

of whether other less drastic remedies were practicable or sufficient.” Protester’s 

Comments at 19. 

Our Office has recognized that, in meeting their responsibility to safeguard the 

interests of the government in its contractual relationships, contracting officers are 

granted wide latitude to exercise business judgment, FAR § 1.602-2, and may impose 

a variety of restrictions, not explicitly provided for in the regulations, where the 

needs of the agency or the nature of the procurement dictates the use of those 

restrictions. Compliance Corp., B-239252, Aug. 15, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 126 at 5, aff’d, 

B-239252.3, Nov. 28, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 435 at 4. For example, a contracting officer 

may protect the integrity of the procurement system by disqualifying an offeror from 

the competition where the firm may have obtained an unfair competitive advantage, 

even if no actual impropriety can be shown, so long as the determination is based on 

facts and not mere innuendo or suspicion. NKF Eng’g, Inc., B-220007, Dec. 9, 1985, 

85-2 CPD ¶ 638 at 5; NKF Eng’g, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 372, 376-77 (Fed. Cir. 

1986); Compliance Corp., supra; Compliance Corp. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 193, 

199-204 (1990), aff’d, 960 F.2d 157 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is our view that, wherever an 

offeror has improperly obtained proprietary proposal information during the course 

of a procurement, the integrity of the procurement is at risk, and an agency’s 

decision to disqualify the firm is generally reasonable, absent unusual circumstances. 

See Compliance Corp., supra (disqualification of offeror reasonable where based on 

its improperly obtaining or attempting to obtain competitor’s proprietary 

information); NKF Eng’g, Inc., supra, at 6 (disqualification not unreasonable where 

there was “mere possibility” that offeror did not obtain an advantage from source 

selection information). 

Here, there is no question that the cost/price evaluation summary that was attached 

to the contacting officer’s 6:35 p.m., September 23 e-mail included information that 

was source selection sensitive, and information that was proprietary to KBR and its 

competitors that was relevant to the LOGCAP IV task order competitions. Nor, 

based on the statement and affidavit of KBR’s LOGCAP IV program manager, is there 

any question that the program manager, at a minimum, knowingly obtained that 

source selection sensitive and proprietary information by accessing the 6:35 p.m., 

September 23 e-mail and attachment; that he did so even though he had been 

previously advised by the agency that the e-mail and its attachment should be 

deleted without being viewed; and that he did so after he had in fact advised the 

agency that he had complied with the direction to delete the e-mail and its 

Page 8 B-400787.2; B-400861 
attachment. Accordingly, in our view, the agency’s actions were based on facts, 

rather than mere innuendo, as is asserted by the protester. 

We also reject KBR’s assertion that the question of whether KBR’s program manager 

improperly gained access to the sensitive information at issue here can be resolved 

by reliance on the KBR LOGCAP IV program manager’s statement that he merely 

viewed the first page of the cost/price evaluation summary before closing the 

document, and the he does not remember or retain any source selection sensitive or 

proprietary information that would be competitively useful to KBR. Since the KBR 

program manager is the individual whose actions are in question, and KBR is the 

firm that has been disqualified from the competition, the program manager’s selfserving statement that he did not “read” the cost/price evaluation summary, and 

KBR’s self-serving assertion that the program manager does not have anything more 

than a “cursory knowledge about the message or its contents,” cannot, in our view, 

be accorded controlling weight without some corroborating evidence, in our 

consideration of whether the agency’s disqualification of KBR from the LOGCAP IV 

task order competitions in question was reasonable. See Computer Tech. Assocs., 

Inc., B-288622, Nov. 7, 2001, 2001 CPD ¶ 187 at 6; see also AR, Tab 7, KBR LOGCAP 

IV Program Manager’s Statement; KBR LOGCAP IV Contracts Manager’s Letter to 

Contracting Officer (Oct. 6, 2008). 

In sum, we find reasonable the agency’s determination here that KBR’s LOGCAP IV 

program manager knowingly and improperly obtained access to source selection 

sensitive and proprietary information, and thus, under the circumstance here, 

determined that action needed to be taken to protect the integrity of the 

procurement system. As such, we next turn to KBR’s specific assertion that the 

disqualification of KBR from the Udairi Airfield and TMDE LOGCAP IV task order 

competitions was unreasonable. 

As set forth above, the record reflects that the agency first considered whether any 

action should be taken with regard to the task order solicitation and competition for 

which the cost/price evaluation summary was prepared. We note that the agency 

determined that because proposals had been submitted prior to the cost/price 

evaluation summary being disclosed to KBR’s program manager, and offerors, 

including KBR, were not provided with an opportunity to revise their proposals, the 

potential impact on the integrity of that procurement did not merit the 

disqualification of KBR or the taking of any other action specific to that 

procurement. Turning to the competitions at issue here, the agency found that since 

the competitions were open, that is, the Udairi Airfield and TMDE solicitations were 

issued on September 24 and 30, respectively, with each having the closing date of 

October 22, the actions of KBR’s program manager, which led the agency to 

conclude that the cost/price evaluation summary either may have been compromised 

or at least created the appearance that the cost/price evaluation summary was 

compromised, necessitated that the program manager be isolated from these 

competitions. Under the circumstances here, we cannot find unreasonable the 

Page 9 B-400787.2; B-400861 
Page 10 B-400787.2; B-400861 

 

contracting officer’s request that, in order to preserve the integrity of the 

procurement system, the KBR program manager be isolated from these 

competitions. Nor can we find the agency’s subsequent determination that KBR be 

disqualified from these competitions to be unreasonable, in light of KBR’s refusal to 

isolate its program manager from these competitions when requested to do so by the 

agency. That is, although KBR complains that the agency’s disqualification of KBR 

from these competitions was unduly severe, the record reflects that this action was 

taken by the agency only after KBR refused the agency’s request to isolate the 

program manager.3

 Given the circumstances, which include KBR’s initial refusal to 

isolate its LOGCAP IV program manager from these open LOGCAP IV task order 

solicitations, we find the agency’s elimination of KBR’s proposals from these task 

order competitions to be reasonable and within the discretion granted to the 

contracting officer. 

The protest is denied. 

Gary L. Kepplinger 

General Counsel 

3

 As mentioned previously, since these disqualifications, KBR has acceded to the 

agency’s request that the program manager be isolated from LOGCAP IV task order 

competitions. The agency has determined that because of this, KBR is able to 

participate in future LOGCAP IV task order competitions, and that “decision to 

exclude KBR from just the [TMDE and Udairi Airfield] solicitations limits the effect 

on KBR of the action taken.” AR at 1.