In Castro & Company, LLC, B-423689, (Nov. 13, 2025), Castro & Company protested the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) decision to award a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Contracts Management Enterprises (CME) for financial management and accounting support services. Castro argued that CME had an unmitigable impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI) because one of CME’s employees worked as a contract specialist on a separate FEC contract where she was in close proximity to the source selection authority for the protested procurement. The protester also challenged multiple aspects of the agency’s technical evaluation, including findings that its proposal lacked “timeline details” and a “structured response,” both of which Castro contended were not supported by the solicitation or adequately explained by the agency. Finally, Castro asserted that the agency’s best-value tradeoff was flawed because the FEC failed to consider Castro’s lower-priced quotation when selecting among technically acceptable offerors. GAO sustained the protest, finding that the agency failed to meaningfully investigate or document the alleged OCI, that the technical evaluation was unsupported, and that the tradeoff analysis improperly omitted consideration of Castro’s quotation.
The Decision
GAO sustained the protest, ruling that:
- GAO Found the Agency Failed to Meaningfully Investigate the OCI: Castro alleged that CME had an impaired objectivity OCI due to one of its employees serving as a contract specialist on another FEC procurement while working in close proximity to the source selection authority for the protested BPA. Although the contracting officer asserted that she implemented safeguards, including limiting access to proposals, setting up firewalls and routing communications through her email, GAO found these claims unconvincing because the record contained no contemporaneous documentation of any OCI analysis or the implementation of such mitigation measures. GAO emphasized that without written evidence, there was no basis to conclude that a meaningful investigation had occurred.
- Firewalls Were the Wrong Tool for the Type of OCI at Issue: GAO further explained that the mitigation measures described by the agency—firewalls and restricted information access—may be suitable for unequal access to information OCIs, but are not sufficient to address impaired objectivity OCIs. The latter requires an assessment of whether a contractor’s judgment could be biased due to conflicting roles. Because the agency failed to recognize or account for this difference, GAO concluded that the conflict was not adequately mitigated for this additional reason.
- The Evaluation Finding on “Timeline Details” Was Unsupported: GAO sustained Castro’s challenge to a weakness assessed for failing to include “timeline details” in its technical approach. The technical evaluation team had cited Section 3 of the SOW as the source of this requirement, but GAO reviewed that section and found that it did not require timeline details at all. The agency attempted to defend its position by claiming Castro had “cherry-picked” the phrase, but GAO rejected that defense, noting that the agency itself used the phrase and had failed to explain how it related to any actual requirement in the solicitation.
- The “Structured Response” Deficiency Was Also Unexplained: Castro also challenged a deficiency assessed for allegedly lacking a “structured response.” GAO found that the agency again failed to explain what the evaluation team meant by this phrase or how Castro’s proposal failed to meet that undefined standard. The agency claimed that the wording was irrelevant, but GAO pointed out that the exact phrase appeared in the evaluation record—including the justification for Castro’s marginal rating—and that the agency’s failure to explain the term made the finding unreasonable.
- The Best-Value Tradeoff Ignored Castro’s Lower Price: GAO also sustained Castro’s challenge to the best-value tradeoff analysis. The record showed that the agency failed to consider Castro’s lower-priced quotation when comparing CME’s higher-priced offer to other competitors. GAO found that the tradeoff did not document any consideration of Castro’s technical merits or its price, which was the lowest among all vendors. Because Castro remained eligible for award, the failure to evaluate it in the tradeoff rendered the decision unreasonable.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- When it Comes to OCI Mitigation, Documentation Is Key: An agency’s oral assurances or post hoc declarations will not save an OCI analysis. GAO requires contemporaneous, written evidence showing that the contracting officer identified, analyzed and mitigated the conflict.
- Agencies Also Must Match Mitigation Steps to the Type of OCI: Firewalls, data silos and access restrictions are appropriate for unequal access to information concerns but not for impaired objectivity, where impartiality is at risk. Agencies must tailor their mitigation approach to the type of OCI at issue, or risk a sustain.
- GAO Will Not Tolerate “Trust Us” Arguments: GAO’s decision makes clear that agencies cannot rely on after-the-fact rationalizations or general assertions of compliance. When the record lacks documented support for such assertions, GAO will sustain the protest. In other words, agencies must show and tell.
- Words Matter, and GAO Will Hold Agencies to Them: When agencies use specific language in an evaluation, they must explain how that language ties back to the solicitation. GAO will not accept post hoc attempts to dismiss protest arguments as “cherry-picking” when the agency’s own words are unsupported or unexplained in the record.
- Protesters Should Zero-In on the Record: When protesting technical evaluation findings or alleged OCIs, focus on what’s missing from the documentation. Unsupported or conclusory statements are fertile ground for a successful protest challenge.
- Best-Value Tradeoffs Must Include All Eligible Offerors: If an offeror is still in the competitive range or otherwise eligible for award, agencies must consider their price and technical approach in the tradeoff analysis. Ignoring the lowest-priced offeror without explanation is grounds for a sustained protest.