As previously noted, although agency organizational conflict of interest (OCI) investigations are highly discretionary, that discretion is not boundless.  GAO’s recent sustain of an impaired objectivity OCI claim in Castro & Company, LLC, B-423689, Nov. 13, 2025, underscores that point, and highlights the need for contracting officers to meaningfully consider the potential conflict and document their analysis and conclusions.  Contractors can play an important role in that effort.

An impaired objectivity OCI “exists where, because of the nature of a firm’s actual or potential work under one contract, it may be unable to provide objective judgments to the government in performing under another government contract.”  Serco Inc., B-404033 et al., Dec. 27, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 302 at 2.  The protester in Castro challenged the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) award of a financial management and accounting services blanket purchase agreement (BPA) to Contracts Management Enterprises, LLC (CME).  Castro alleged that CME had an impaired objectivity OCI because it also held an acquisition support services contract with the FEC.  In fact, a CME employee was directly supporting the source selection authority for the challenged procurement. 

The contracting officer stated that, prior to the procurement, she had concluded that CME’s acquisition support work could create an actual or perceived conflict so she:  (1) firewalled the potentially conflicted employee; (2) restricted access to quotation materials; and (3) ensured no solicitation materials were uploaded to share drives before award.  B-423689 at 5-6.  The agency asserted that these steps adequately mitigated any potential OCI concerns.

GAO sustained the protest, concluding that the protester had presented “hard facts” to demonstrate an actual or apparent impaired objectivity OCI, and the contracting officer “failed to conduct a meaningful investigation . . . or to contemporaneously document her consideration” of that OCI.  Id. at 6-7.  As GAO put it, the contracting officer did not explain what she had “considered in her analysis,” “what factors formed the basis of her OCI determination,” “or how [that determination] even related to the alleged impaired objectivity OCI.”  Id. at 7. GAO observed that the firewall and other purported mitigation steps implemented by the agency “appear to address an unequal access to information OCI,” which protester had not alleged, rather than an impaired objectivity OCI.  Id. at 7 n.6. GAO further noted that, although the agency argued that any potential OCI was mitigated by isolating CME personnel, Castro’s OCI allegations were not limited to the procurement at issue — they implicated all future awards under the BPA because CME would “potentially be[ ] on both sides of the procurement process . . . .” Id.

GAO’s decision in Castro highlights the importance of a meaningful, documented OCI investigation and analysis.  Contractors can aid agencies in that effort at multiple stages in the procurement process.  Prior to award, contractors should submit OCI mitigation plans that identify any potential OCIs by category, and supply the contracting officer with the facts and information necessary to support a conclusion that the OCI is not significant or has been adequately mitigated.  And because contracting officers may investigate a protester’s OCI allegations during the pendency of the protest, awardees can play a vital role in that investigation — framing the alleged OCI correctly, providing the agency with the facts and mitigation information that it needs to conclude that the conflict is insignificant or adequately mitigated, and making sure that the agency documents its investigation and conclusions adequately.