DirectViz Solutions, LLC (B-423366; B-423366.3; B-423366.4)

You might care.

Category: Organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), technical experience, orals

Date: 11 June 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421598%2Cb-421598.4

DirectViz Solutions, LLC, the incumbent contractor, protested the Army’s issuance of an IT support services task order for its Global Cyber Center (GCC) to Peraton, Inc., under Army's CHESS-ITESS IDIQ vehicle. DirectViz alleged that Peraton had an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest (OCI) due to overlapping work as incumbent on the Army CYBER (ARCYBER) support task order. DirectViz argued Peraton could not supply impartial objective advice and might be incentivized to favor its own performance under the fully overlapping contracts, thus impairing objectivity. Other protest grounds included the attribution of affiliate past performance, evaluation of key personnel certifications, the adequacy of record-keeping for oral presentations, and cost realism.

OCIs, impaired objectivity and investigation shortfalls: GAO found the Army unreasonably concluded that no potential conflict existed, despite the record showing overlapping work on the ARCYBER and GCC task orders. Peraton’s role supporting ARCYBER included developing cyber policies and recommending courses of action affecting the GCC—where Peraton would also be the prime. GAO held the contracting officer’s OCI analysis lacked substantive review of the actual statements of work, instead overly relying on conclusory official statements and uncritically adopting Peraton’s self-serving denials, often in contradiction to the requirements statements. Proper mitigation or a waiver is required.

Technical, experience, and evaluation: GAO rejected DirectViz’s remaining challenges. The Army properly awarded experience credit for affiliate/subsidiary work based on meaningful resource commitment. The Army was not required to grant additional credit to the incumbent. Evaluation of key personnel certification was reasonable. Cost realism arguments failed as no technical approach was solicited for evaluation.

Oral presentations and process documentation: GAO found the agency’s recordkeeping for oral presentations sufficient under FAR subpart 16.5; more rigorous documentation under FAR part 15 is not required for streamlined task order competitions. Claims that agency follow-up questions in oral presentations constituted improper discussions were dismissed.

GAO sustained in part (on the OCI), denied in part (the remainder).

GAO sustained the protest on the narrow but salient ground that the Army failed to conduct a meaningful, record-based investigation into Peraton's potential impaired objectivity OCI. OCI reviews—especially impaired objectivity—must be fact- and requirements-specific, documented, and skeptical of conclusory or self-interested assurances. Contracting officers must “show their work,” especially when broad service contracts in closely related mission areas raise natural questions about objectivity.

Digest

1. Protest that awardee has disqualifying organizational conflicts of interest is sustained where the record shows that the agency unreasonably concluded there was no possibility of a potential conflict arising from the awardee's performance of a related task order.
2. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, and adequately documented.