Peraton Inc. (B-423639, B-423639.2, B-423639.3)

You should not care.

Categories: Technical evaluation, OCIs, unstated evaluation criteria

Date: 17 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423639,b-423639.2,b-423639.3

Peraton protests the issuance of a task order to General Dynamics Information Technology under a task order request issued by GSA's Federal Acquisition Service for USSTRATCOM IT life cycle support services. The cost-plus-award-fee task order, valued at approximately $1.5 billion, was competed under the Allianz 2 governmentwide acquisition contract. GDIT received an overall rating of good to Peraton's acceptable, driven by two significant weaknesses in Peraton's proposal related to audio-visual engineering services for the global operations center. Peraton raises five protest grounds challenging the evaluation, the agency's OCI investigation, and the decision not to conduct clarifications.

Unstated evaluation criteria: Peraton argued that the agency applied an unstated evaluation criterion by assessing significant weaknesses for its failure to adequately address A/V engineering within the GOC. GAO found the performance work statement clearly required the contractor to provide A/V engineering support and the evaluation criteria directed the agency to assess the comprehensiveness of each offeror's technical approach. Evaluating whether a quotation addresses a stated PWS requirement is not an unstated evaluation criterion.

Significant weaknesses: GAO found no inappropriate double-counting. The two significant weaknesses each independently related to a different evaluation factor—one under technical approach and one under staffing. The agency reasonably concluded Peraton's quotation failed to demonstrate adequate A/V engineering capability under both factors.

OCI investigation: Two former government employees who had worked on the predecessor contract were hired by GDIT. The contracting officer investigated the potential for unequal access to information and impaired objectivity conflicts, obtaining sworn statements and reviewing each individual's prior duties, access to non-public information, and role in GDIT's proposal. GAO found the investigation reasonable and the conclusion—that neither individual possessed competitively useful non-public information—was supported by the record.

Clarifications: The solicitation did not require the agency to conduct clarifications, and Peraton could not demonstrate prejudice because the significant weaknesses reflected substantive shortcomings in its approach, not ambiguities that discussions could have resolved.

The protest is denied.

Digest

1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.
2. Protest that the agency should have disqualified the awardee based on an alleged organizational conflict of interest due to the awardee hiring two former government employees who had access to non-public competitively useful information is denied where the agency conducted an investigation and reasonably determined that no conflict exists.
3. Protest that the agency was required to seek clarifications based on evaluated weaknesses and other negative findings in the protester's proposal is denied where the terms of the solicitation did not require the agency to seek clarifications in such circumstances.