The protester argued the agency failed to sufficiently address another offeror’s impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) regarding its role in another contract for the same agency. Although the agency admitted some activities might impair objectivity, the agency concluded — and GAO affirmed — that any impairment was mitigated by the agency’s subsequent review process.
Lockheed Martin Corporation, GAO B-423294
- Protest – The protester challenged the actions of the agency in connection with a proposal for Tactical Operations Center – Light (TOC-L). It claimed the agency failed to adequately investigate another offeror’s organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). Additionally, the protester argued the FOPR did not provide sufficient information for offerors to compete intelligently and fairly.
- (OCI) Impaired Objectivity – The protester claimed that another offeror’s role as the cloud-based command and control (CBC2) software integrator for the agency gave rise to an impaired OCI. In its investigation, the agency noted the software integrator’s role did implicate at least some activities that could influence the instant task order. However, the agency concluded any impaired objectivity was mitigated by the agency’s systems engineering and design review processes. GAO found the agency reasonably assessed the potential for competing roles and reasonably found any impaired objectivity OCI was mitigated.
- (OCI) Unequal Access to Information – The protester also maintained there was an unequal access to information OCI since the other offeror’s CBC2 role granted it access to nonpublic information. The agency’s measure to neutralize any unfair competitive advantage was to produce a more complete “Bidder’s Library” with “details for each offeror…to determine whether an existing contract [gave] the contractor access to nonpublic information that will give it an unfair competitive advantage.” The protester did not dispute the Bidder’s Library, but contended the agency did not ask sufficient follow-up questions about the extent of a firewall between the offeror’s CBC2 team and its proposal team. However, GAO concluded that if the protester did not contest the information in the Bidder’s Library, the protester could not demonstrate harm.
- Insufficient Information – Finally, the protester argued the solicitation did not provide adequate information regarding the capabilities of the Raytheon Solipsys Battlespace Command and Control Center (BC3) software to allow offerors to intelligently prepare proposals on a fair basis. The agency responded it “provided all available information.” GAO sided with the agency finding that it had provided the status of the BC3 software, its current capabilities, and the expectations for future development.
The protester was represented by Luke Levasseur, Evan C. Williams, and Michael E. Lackey, Jr. of Mayer Brown LLP; and Renee Brunett of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The intervenor was represented by James J. McCullough, Michael J. Anstett, Alexander B. Ginsberg, Elizabeth J. Kalanchoe, Jennifer Prescott, and Robert C. Starling of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The agency was represented by Nina R. Padalino, Siobhan K. Donahue, and Thomas G. Kopacz of the Air Force. Samantha S. Lee and Peter H. Tran of GAO participated in the preparation of the decision.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.
