Groundswell's protest of Army business system award calls out debriefing issues

Groundswell levels many allegations in its protest against the Army's choice of Accenture Federal Services for a contract to consolidate multiple business systems onto a single platform.

The Army Enterprise Business Systems – Convergence contract is expected to be worth more than $1 billion over its eight-year run.

Groundswell lost the head to head competition with Accenture. My first story on Groundswell's protest outlines variety of allegations such as unfair treatment and anticompetitive actions by Accenture and SAP, the software the EBS-C will be built on.

But I want to explore one allegation that I only made a short mention of in my earlier article, which is the poor quality of the debriefing Groundswell says it received.

The Army waited nearly a month after the Sept. 26 award before conducting the debrief.

“At that long-awaited de-brief, which was preceded by questions submitted by [Groundswell] and its lawyers to the Army, the Army told [the company] precisely nothing,” Groundswell wrote in its complaint at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The Army refused to give the overall score for Accenture on step five of the acquisition. The Army also refused to say whether the score was better or worse than Groundswell.

The Army also refused to share Accenture’s pricing information, Groundswell said.

A third complaint is that the Army refused to share Groundswell’s evaluation in step five of the procurement.

“The Army made no attempt to justify or explain its decision,” the company said.

After the judge released the complaint, we contacted Groundswell for comment and received a statement from CEO George Batsakis that focused on the debriefing.

“We decided to file a complaint and bid protest to understand the selection criteria for the winner and the reasons behind Groundswell’s non-selection. We aim to comprehend the decision-making details to enhance our competitive capabilities in future opportunities,” Batsakis said.

I know from the many bid protests we cover and conversations we have with executives across the market, many people will sympathize with Batsakis’ statement.

Many executives have told me that they often protest because they do not know why they lost. A protest action at either the Government Accountability Office or at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (where Groundswell filed) is often the best tool for companies to learn what went wrong.

Several years ago, Congress directed the Defense Department to create what has been called an enhanced debriefing process.

The enhanced process includes more details on strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies. DOD also most answer follow-up questions that come in after the debriefing.

However, the Army awarded the EBS-C contract through an other transaction authority process.

OTAs do not fall under the rules for the enhanced debriefing regulations. Defense agencies including the Army can get as detailed or not during the debriefings.

I have no idea if the other parts of Groundswell’s complaint will withstand the court process, but the complaints about the debriefing certainly ring true when I think about our conversations with executives and lawyers across the market.

When I read that part of the Groundswell complaint, I had to sigh. That complaint is so common it’s almost a cliché.

It’s a Catch-22. The government does not want to share because they fear a protest, but industry has to protest to learn more about the loss.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I vote for more openness and transparency.