GAO decisions/Sustained/Decided 11 Jun 2025
DirectViz Solutions, LLC
Impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest
The procurement
IT support services for the Army's Global Cyber Center (GCC), competed as a task order under the Army's CHESS multiple-award IDIQ contract (FAR 16.505) using a best-value tradeoff. The task order is valued at more than $35 million and went to Peraton.
The protest
DirectViz argued that Peraton had an impaired objectivity OCI. Under a separate task order for Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER), Peraton helps develop the standard operating procedures and tactics, techniques, and procedures for cyberspace operations, and helps develop and oversee cybersecurity policies for ARCYBER's subordinate components, including the GCC. That gives Peraton a role in shaping the rules for the same GCC work it would now perform.
The agency’s answer
After the protests, the contracting officer investigated twice and found no OCI. The Army said Peraton is not authorized to structure policies for GCC government personnel and does not advise on how the GCC contractor runs its cyber operations. It added that government personnel give final sign-off on contractor work, that the two task orders sit on separate vehicles with separate contracting offices, and that Peraton would not evaluate its own performance.
What decided it
The OCI analysis never examined what the other task order required, and Government sign-off on advice is not mitigation by itself.
GAO found that the ARCYBER task order's terms created a significant potential impaired objectivity OCI. The contracting officer relied on conclusory declarations without analyzing the relevant PWS provisions, so GAO had no basis to find the OCI determination reasonable. GAO recommended that the Army meaningfully reconsider the OCI, decide on mitigation or a waiver, and reimburse DirectViz's protest costs. The other protest grounds were denied or dismissed.
“Our Office has explained, however, 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.”
GAO, B-423366
For the file: An OCI memo that repeats the program office's assurances without walking through the awardee's other PWS will not survive review, and 'the government makes the final decision' does not count as mitigation.
Authorities: FAR 9.504(a); FAR 9.505(a). Read the decision at GAO →
Facts are condensed from the published decision and the quote is verbatim; the takeaway is ours. Where GAO decided several grounds, only this one is described.
Could you have called it?
Protest! is the daily game: three real GAO decisions, both sides laid out. Rule sustain, deny or dismiss, then pick what decided it.
Play today’s Protest!