mary416 | Shutterstock

Share:

The protester argued the awardee’s proposal should have been disqualified for failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest. The president of the awardee was married to a contracting officer who worked on the incumbent contract. COFC concluded the failure to disclose would only be disqualifying if the omission were material. Because the agency did not rely on the lack of disclosure, it was immaterial.

ITellect, LLC. v. United States & Lightgrid, LLC., COFC No. 24-935
  • Conflict of Interest – After the agency awarded the contract, the protester learned that the president of the awardee was married to an agency contracting officer. For two months in 2022, this officer served as the contracting officer in the protester’s incumbent contract. The awardee failed to mention the potential conflict in its proposal.
  • Material Misrepresentation and Solicitation Noncompliance – The protester argued the agency should have disqualified the awardee’s proposal for material misrepresentation and failure to comply with the solicitation’s requirement of disclosing potential Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI).
    • After reviewing the record, COFC found that the agency did not rely on the alleged omission. Thus, any misrepresentation was not material.
    • COFC noted failure to conform to solicitation terms only renders a proposal unawardable if the violation relates to a material term. The contracting officer had disclosed her marriage on multiple occasions and recused herself from projects involving the awardee. The court ruled that at worst, the awardee’s failure to disclose constituted a minor irregularity that the contracting officer had the discretion to waive.
  • FAR OCI Provision – The FAR 3.101-1 bars even the appearance of OCI. The spouse of the awardee’s president had no role in the solicitation at issue and therefore could not have affected the procurement in any way. Furthermore, the contracting officer’s review concluded that the spouse obtained no advantageous information for the competition. Citing the deferential review of an agency’s OCI decision, the court found no reason to disturb the CO’s investigation.

The protester was represented by Daniel J. Strouse of Cordatis LLP and Cherylyn H. LeBon, Ben Smith, and Patrice Howard of Womble Bond Dickinson. The agency was represented by Robert R. Kiepura, Joshua D. Bell, and Jonathan Pomerance of DOJ. Paul Hawkins and J. Bradley Reaves of ReavesColey PLLC represented the intervenor.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

Share: