May 19, 2019

May 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 16, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

In Archimedes Bid Protest, Government Contractor Takes on Herculean Task of Challenging the Agency’s OCI Determination, and Wins

Earlier this month, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustained a bid protest challenging the agency’s decision to exclude the protester from consideration based on a potential organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”).  The GAO decision serves as a reminder that an offeror that is excluded from a competition on the basis of a perceived OCI can challenge that decision in a protest before GAO.  And although GAO will give the agency a fair amount of deference, it will nonetheless sustain a protest where it concludes that the agency’s decision was unreasonable.

In the Archimedes Global bid protest, the contractor submitted a proposal to perform services in response to a solicitation issued by the Department of Homeland Security.  The solicitation included a clause permitting the agency to disqualify the incumbent contractor from competing for follow-on work because the predecessor contract required the incumbent to have access to non-public, procurement sensitive information.  Archimedes’ proposal listed as key personnel two program managers currently working for the incumbent.  And for that reason, the agency excluded Archimedes from consideration based on the grounds that those employees could have provided Archimedes with unequal access to information.

The GAO found that the agency’s decision to exclude Archimedes was unreasonable.  Case law requires that an agency’s identification of a disqualifying conflict of interest be based on “hard facts,” not the “mere inference or supposition” of a conflict of interest.  “Chief among” the GAO’s concerns was that the agency, without any underlying evidence, concluded that because there was a possibility of the employees having access to non-public information, the employees necessarily provided that information to Archimedes.  But the record before the GAO showed that the incumbent’s employees did not participate in preparing Archimedes’ proposals and, even though one employee theoretically could have obtained non-public information, that employee did not do so.

The Archimedes case is somewhat unusual in two respects.  First, most OCI-related protests arise when a protester challenges the agency’s decision to award a contract to a competitor alleged to have an OCI.  It is less common for a protester to challenge an agency’s conclusion that the protester itself has an OCI.  Second, for the past number of years, in the wake of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Turner Construction, GAO and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims generally have been quite deferential to agency OCI determinations.

A key takeaway from Archimedes is that, despite that general deference, agency discretion has its limits.  If an offeror believes that an agency’s OCI determination was not reasonable or supported by “hard facts,” the offeror can seek relief via a protest.

© 2019 Covington & Burling LLP

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Jason A. "Jay" Carey, Covington Burling, Government Contracts Attorney,
Partner

Jason Carey represents clients in litigation with the government and other private parties, counsels clients regarding a wide range of formation and compliance matters, and defends clients under investigation by federal and state governments. Mr. Carey regularly represents government contractors in bid protests before the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Court of Federal Claims. He has prosecuted and defended more than 80 protests covering a wide range of procurements, such as:

  • aerospace and defense (including an $11B launch services contract);
  • ...
202 662 5186
Pierre Hines, Covington, Government Contracts Attorney
Associate

Pierre Hines provides counseling, investigation, and litigation services to government contractors – particularly those in the defense, healthcare, and information technology industries. He counsels clients in connection with M&A due diligence involving government contractors, along with complex issues arising under the FAR. He conducts internal investigations involving alleged fraud and FCA violations.  Mr. Hines also litigates contract disputes in federal courts and administrative tribunals.

Prior to joining Covington, Mr. Hines was a law clerk to the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

202-662-5239