Close
Updated:

Conflict Confirmed: GAO Sustains Rare OCI Protest in Army Cyber Procurement

by

    • In DirectViz Solutions, LLC, B-423366, et al. (June 11, 2025)​, DirectViz Solutions protested the Army’s issuance of a task order to Peraton for cybersecurity information technology support services for the Army’s Global Cyber Center (GCC). DirectViz alleged that Peraton’s simultaneous performance of a related task order supporting the Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER) created an impaired objectivity OCI—a conflict that Peraton failed to disclose, and that the agency failed to meaningfully investigate. GAO sustained the protest—a rare outcome in OCI cases—concluding that the Army’s OCI review was inadequate, and that Peraton’s overlapping roles posed a significant potential conflict.

    The Decision
    GAO sustained the protest, ruling that:

    1. GAO Sustains Rare OCI Protest: GAO found that Peraton’s dual roles—supporting policy development and oversight at ARCYBER while also performing the GCC task order—created a real risk that it would be evaluating or shaping its own work in violation of objectivity standards set by the FAR.
    2. Impaired Objectivity Risk Was Clear on the Face of the Contracts: The ARCYBER task order required Peraton to assist in developing standard operating procedures, reviewing vulnerabilities, and reporting on performance across subordinate units like GCC. Meanwhile, the GCC task order had Peraton implementing those same policies, which effectively put the contractor in a position to align those policies and procedures with its own capabilities and to review its own execution.
    3. Agency’s Investigation Fell Short: Despite DirectViz pointing to specific provisions in the performance work statements, the Army’s contracting officer relied solely on high-level declarations and Peraton’s own statements, without reconciling those assertions against the actual contract requirements.
    4. Mitigation Measures Were Insufficient: The Army cited government oversight and separate contracting offices as safeguards. GAO rejected this argument, reiterating that final agency review doesn’t cure biased input, and different offices don’t eliminate OCI risks when the contractor is the same.

    Key Takeaways for Contractors

    1. OCI Protests Can Succeed When the Facts Are Strong: While rare, GAO will sustain an OCI protest if the record shows a clear, fact-based risk of impaired objectivity.
    2. Agencies Must Go Beyond Check-the-Box Reviews: High-level denials or conclusory statements from officials won’t suffice. The agency must analyze specific contract duties to determine if a conflict exists.
    3. Disclosure Obligations Matter: Contractors must disclose potential OCIs, even if they seem unlikely. A failure to disclose, coupled with agency reliance on those assertions, amplifies the risk of a sustained protest.
    4. Impaired Objectivity Means Self-Evaluation Risks: If you’re drafting policies or evaluating performance for a mission you’re also performing, GAO may find the roles incompatible.
    5. General Oversight Doesn’t Cure OCI Risk: The fact that government officials “approve” deliverables doesn’t eliminate OCI concerns. GAO expects objective, impartial advice at every level.