The following is an installment in Crowell & Moring’s Bid Protest Sustain of the Month Series.  In this series, Crowell’s Government Contracts Practice will keep you up to date with a summary of one of the most notable bid protest sustain decisions each month.  Below, Crowell Consultant (and former GAO Bid Protest Hearing Officer) Cherie Owen discusses GAO’s decision in DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, June 11, 2025, which sustained a protester’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arguments.

The case involved a procurement by the Department of the Army for cybersecurity information technology support services in support of the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC).  After the Army awarded the contract to Peraton, Inc., disappointed offeror DirectViz Solutions, LLC protested the award, alleging that Peraton’s performance of anther contract created an OCI with respect to the GCC contract.

Peraton’s other contract involves work for the Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER), which plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes, directs, and conducts an integrated defense within all Army networks, including for the subordinate GCC.  DirectViz argued that Peraton’s work on the ARCYBER contract could put it in a position to shape overarching cyber policies and plans for subordinate components including GCC, influence decisions at the ARCYBER level to benefit Peraton’s work at the GCC, and provide biased advice to ARCYBER about deliverables Peraton would provide under the GCC contract.  After reviewing the performance work statements (PWS) for each contract, GAO agreed.  For example, GAO noted that the ARCYBER contract requires Peraton to assist in developing policies and strategies governing the cyber operations at the GCC level.  In addition, the GCC PWS requires the GCC contractor to take operational direction from ARCYBER.  Moreover, the ARCYBER PWS requires Peraton to “provide assistance in the development, inspection, evaluation, and oversight of cybersecurity policies and procedures” for the GCC.  Thus, Peraton’s ability to render impartial advice to the government under the ARCYBER contract could be undermined by Peraton’s competing interests under the GCC contract.

GAO noted that the Army conducted two rounds of OCI investigations and concluded that there was no potential OCI.  However, these investigations were insufficient and the agency’s conclusory findings of no OCI were contradicted by specific and unrebutted evidence to the contrary.  For example, the OCI investigation failed to engage with the specific tasks in the two contracts’ PWS statements, instead relying on “entirely conclusory” declarations of the contracting officer’s representative (COR) for the GCC task order and an acquisition official for ARCYBER claiming that “ARCYBER does not provide guidance or advice on how the GCC handles its cyber operations.”  As GAO noted, these statements were directly contradicted by the two PWS statements showing the opposite.  GAO found the OCI investigation also relied on “self-serving” responses from Peraton, which “plainly conflicted with the terms of the respective PWS.”  Finally, GAO rejected the Army’s claim that no OCI existed because Government personnel would have the final say in all decisions, noting GAO’s longstanding position that “the fact that agency officials must approve any recommendations from the contractor does not inherently mitigate the risk that the advice received from the contractor could be biased.”  In this regard, GAO stressed that “the purpose of an OCI review is to determine whether a firm’s advice to the government would be impaired by conflicting duties or interests.”  GAO also rejected as irrelevant the Army’s statement that the two contracts are administered by two different acquisition offices.  The DirectViz decision highlights the risk to contract awards that can arise from OCIs.  Contractors submitting proposals should proactively review their current contracts to identify potential conflicts and propose a strong OCI mitigation plan, then work with the agency to ensure that potential conflicts are substantively addressed.  Conversely, disappointed offerors considering a protest should keep an eye out for potential OCIs and alert your protest counsel to any potential conflicts involving the awardee.