Organizational Conflicts of
Interest
(OCI)
NCMA Potomac Chapter
March 19, 2013
Madonna Dougherty, Esq.
Discussion Overview
• OCI Defined per FAR 9.5 and GAO Decisions
• PCOI/OCI Implications
• Current OCI environment and trends
• Identifying Potential Conflicts
• Overview of OCI mitigation plans
• Post Award OCI Management
• Auditing Compliance
• Subcontractors/Teaming OCI Management
Definition of OCI per FAR 9.505 and GAO Decisions
• Generally speaking an OCI occurs when: (FAR 9.505)
– A contractor has a conflicting role that might bias their
judgment or in some way influence a government competitive
procurement ; OR
– A contractor appears to have an unfair competitive advantage
• Per GAO decisions (see Aetna, B-254397, July 1995) an OCI occurs
when:
– the contractor has an unfair competitive advantage if they
have access to beneficial proprietary information other
competitors do not have access to;
– the contractor is presumed to bias the ground rules if due to
current contract performance they are/have been in a position
to influence the technical ground rules of a government
competed solicitation, or;
– the contractor is presumed to have impaired objectivity if they
are evaluating or recommending their own product or
services.
OCI Perspectives
• Present vs. Future Conflicts
– Present issue: does the offeror have an OCI (based on past
activities or conflicting business interests) that makes it ineligible
for award of today’s contract?
– Future issue: the offeror/contractor is eligible for award of the
current contract, but the work may make the contractor ineligible
for some future contract.
• Perception vs. Actual OCI
– Perceived future OCI must be mitigated just as any actual OCI
must be resolved
• Personal COI vs. OCI
– Generally these are 2 distinct issues but it is important to vet
personnel working on proposals and on-contract for conflicts and
there are specific regulations which govern certain types of PCOI
PCOI/OCI Implications
• Personal Conflicts of Interest
– “DOD has increasingly turned to contractors to fill roles previously held by
government employees and to perform many functions that closely support
inherently governmental functions, such as contracting support,
intelligence analysis, program management, and engineering and technical
support for program offices. This trend has raised concerns ….”
• (Statement of David M. Walker, Comptroller General, Before the
Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, January 23, 2008.)
– Statutory and regulatory provisions apply to government employees to
address personal conflicts of interest.
• Title 18 of the US Code addresses representational activities, postgovernment employment, financial interests, and payment for official
actions.
• Other statutes limit outside employment, limit permissible gifts, and impose
other restrictions.
• The Procurement Integrity Act also imposes restrictions on employees
involved in the award or administration of contracts.
Recent PCOI/OCI Regulations
• Former DoD Officials, DFAR 252.203-7000
– New regulation Dec 2011 requires all offerors to represent that any “Covered DoD
officials” who are expected to perform on the resultant contract are in compliance with
any of their post-government employment restrictions
– Companies need to screen employees for Covered DoD Officials before including them in
a proposal or assigning them work
– Companies should have all employees who are Covered DoD Officials acknowledge their
ongoing duty to disclose if any task assignments might violate their post-government
employment restrictions
• Acquisition Functions, FAR 52.203-16
– performing functions “closely associated with inherently governmental function”, e.g.
source selection services
– Must ensure no PCOI, e.g., employment, honorariums, research funding, investments, real
estate, patents/IP rights, business ownership, retirement plans
– must not use non-public information for personal or company gain
– Company need to screen employees for PCOI before assigning to any acquisition function
contracts
OCI Environment
•
•
•
•
Some Agencies Moving to Avoidance vs. Mitigation
RFPs calling for OCI Plans regardless of level of OCI risk
Government Agency OCI checklists more prevalent
Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act 2009, signed May 22, 2009 by
Pres. Obama, new DFAR resulted:
– Final DFAR on OCI for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
(MDAPs)
– DFAR requires 3 criteria to allow System Engineering &
Technical Assistance (SETA) work yet overcome the
mandatory preclusion
(1) Head of Contracting Agency approval
(2) Domain expertise
(3) Agreed upon mitigation resolution
•
Proposed changes to FAR 9.5 issued, comments submitted July 2011,
final rule still pending
“Proposed” Changes to FAR 9.5
• Analysis Of Risk. (i) harm to the integrity of the competitive acquisition system
and (ii) harm to the government’s business interests. The proposed rule sets forth
different treatment based on that distinction. This new definition of the risk is used
to introduce the new “acceptance of risk of harm” proposal.
• Acceptance Of Risk Of Harm To Government Business Interests. the FAR
Councils' proposal provides that the risk of harm to the government's business
interests may sometimes be assessed as an acceptable performance risk and further
action may not be necessary to address the conflict.
• Recognition Of Corporate Structural Barriers And Internal Controls. the
proposed FAR provision recognizes that corporate structural barriers – such as
independent boards of directors – may, in some circumstances, constitute sufficient
mitigation.
• Removal Of Unequal Access To Nonpublic Information From The OCI
Framework. the proposed FAR provision removes the concept of unequal access to
nonpublic information from the definition of OCIs, and treats it separately under FAR
Part 4.
OCI Trends Impacts on Industry
 Divestitures of Business Units and Contracts
 M&A scrutiny
 Continued bid protests - will the number rise or be reduced?
 Interpretation questions
Determination of Potential OCI
• OCI is not limited to any particular type of contract; however , it is more likely
to be found in contracts involving:
– Management support services;
– Consultant or other professional services;
– Contractor performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or
– Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a
contractor that does not have overall contractual responsibility for
development or production – often referred to as “SETA” contracts
• Review of the SOW/SOO is the key to determining any potential OCI risk
• SETA vs. System Engineering & Integration work
– those companies that manufacture or provide certain services may be the
best technical providers of integration services so mitigation should be the
goal so the government obtains best value
There is no finite list or one size fits all, each SOW needs individual
review!!
Red Flag SOW Tasks
Testing
Requirements Definition
Website support
Trade studies
Long range planning
Systems engineering
Advise/advice/advisory support
Policy Guidance
Research
Evaluate
Budgetary planning
Future ….
OCI Analysis
• Government and Industry need to collaborate as much as possible
– Review of possible OCI issues and/or OCI approaches/mitigation is an
exchange of information , not “discussions”, thus the government can engage
in this exchange at any time during the procurement phase, (see e.g. Overlook
decision, Nov 2006)
– Pre-RFP review of the SOW and analysis of potential OCI is essential
• Recommend RFIs or market survey specifically on OCI
• Are there any measures the government can implement to avoid, mitigate or
neutralize OCI?
– Establish a bidder’s library?
– Require avoidance (not eligible to bid) by all companies who assist in the perRFP and/or source selection
• List those companies in the RFP so bidders know to not team with any
entity of those companies
– If impaired objectivity possible but not probable or not a significant part of
the work scope, government can accept some risk and/or grant a waiver of
residual OCI risk (see The Analysis Group decision, Apr 2011)
What might NOT be an OCI?
• White Papers: these are company marketing documents and are purposefully biased towards that
company’s products. These are an important tool in providing valuable information to governmental
agencies. Use caution however and state the paper is for marketing purpose only and is not
intended to provide requirements or specifications for government competed RFPs. Also you may
want to distribute as a .pdf or with other password/read-only protections
• Development work: per FAR 9.505-2(a)(3), “In development work, it is normal to select firms
that have done the most advanced work in the field. These firms can be expected to design and
develop around their own prior knowledge. Development contractors can frequently start
production earlier and more knowledgeably than firms that did not participate in the development,
and this can affect the time and quality of production, both of which are important to the
Government. In many instances the Government may have financed the development. Thus, while
the development contractor has a competitive advantage, it is an unavoidable one that is not
considered unfair; hence no prohibition should be imposed.”
• Incumbency: GAO has long held that “an offeror may possess unique information, advantages,
and capabilities due to its prior experience under a government contract--either as an incumbent
contractor or otherwise; further, the government is not necessarily required to equalize competition
to compensate for such an advantage”. This is considered a fair advantage, however biased ground
rules, or access to third party information which provides an unfair competitive advantage, may
pose an OCI that must be addressed.
• Teaming Arrangements: when bidders join multiple teams and/or have access to Third Party
Proprietary Information, the companies need to protect each other’s information, not the
government, and this is not necessarily an OCI
OCI Analysis, cont’d
• What is the nature of the SOW?
• What are the potential conflicts?
– Can they be mitigated?
• Does the incumbency exception apply?
• Does performing as a prime or sub impact the OCI analyses?
• Who are the competitors?
– Are they similarly situated?
• Does 9.505-2(a)(3) apply? Recognizes development work by nature
may provide a competitive advantage but it is unavoidable and
therefore no prohibitions apply
• Is it an IDIQ ?
– Multiple award ?
– What is the probability of OCI at the task order level?
– Allow for not bidding on task orders that pose OCI which cannot
be mitigated?
OCI Analysis: You Make the Call -1) During performance on one contract, a contractor evaluates the technical strength of a number of
products. A product under evaluation is manufactured by one of the contractor’s affiliates. The
contractor knows a great deal about that product – the good and the bad – which it plans to fully
and accurately disclose to the agency.
– Unequal access to information?
– Impaired objectivity?
– Biased ground rules?
– None of the above?
 What if the contractor also will be drafting the SOW for a later procurement of one of the
products? Does the type of OCI change?
2) A contractor holds a contract for IT support. The government will “re-compete” the contract next
year and will add some additional scope to the contract. The contractor's own performance data and
proprietary information are the best information on how to bid the contract. Only the current
contractor possesses this information.
– Unequal access to information?
– Impaired objectivity?
– Biased ground rules?
– None of the above?
OCI Analysis: You Make the Call -3) Through its performance on a subcontract, a company gains access to non-public
source selection information for another contract. One of the company’s affiliates
will be bidding on that contract, but that affiliate is a separate legal entity (a
subsidiary of the parent company).
–
–
–
–
Unequal access to information?
Impaired objectivity?
Biased ground rules?
None of the above?
4) Only two companies submit proposals to perform an auditing services contract and
both companies have subsidiaries that provide the same type of services to the
government that will be audited.
–
–
–
–
Unequal access to information?
Impaired objectivity?
Biased ground rules?
None of the above?
OCI Mitigation
• What is OCI Mitigation?
– OCI mitigation is the process by which the government or contractor
avoids, neutralizes or mitigates an actual or perceived potential OCI to
prevent a situation that would otherwise appear to bias the contractor’s
judgment or would create an unfair competitive environment
• OCI Mitigation Plans usually provide an information control environment
that protects sensitive Government and third party information in
accomplishing contract requirements, and limits information flow into and
out of the Program
– Restriction of data flow and personnel is commonly referred to as a
“firewall” which is an accepted measure for unequal access type OCI
issues; however, a firewall alone CANNOT protect against bias and/or
impaired objectivity
–
• Remember, Perception of an OCI is equally as serious as an actual OCI
issue and must be addressed through OCI mitigation procedures also
"Where, as here, the facts demonstrate that an OCI exists, the harm from that
conflict, unless it is avoided or adequately mitigated, is presumed to occur.“
(VRC, Inc. GAO decision 11/2/2007)
OCI Mitigation Plans
• Essential elements of an OCI Plan needed to meet FAR requirements and to
mitigate potential OCI issues:
– Description of the OCI Situation/Analysis, often left out of templates and
cookie-cutter approach, yet is an integral element of any mitigation, “why is
this Plan necessary”?
– Organizational Isolation and Controlled Access to program facilities –
“Firewalls” (Key Principle); includes ADPE isolation as required
– Special document handling and storage (information protection)
– Employee awareness and training on both OCI generally and on the specifics
related to the OCI Plan
– Limitation on personnel transfers, if applicable
• Use this judiciously , restrictions affect individual employee’s ability to
work or transfer and can have significant impact on their personal lives
– Flow down of all OCI requirements to subcontractors
– Audits
Key: What organization, policy, or procedure are you going to present to the Government
to demonstrate your organization can mitigate any actual or perceived OCI concern
regarding the proposal environment or during contract performance?
Recognize OCI plans incur time and cost.
Mitigation of Bias Ground Rules/Impaired Objectivity
•
Mitigating Impaired Objectivity, e.g. Tasking to Evaluate your own Products or
Services
– Use of a conflict-free Subcontractor
– Deliverables can be sent directly to government, i.e. firewalled from prime
•
Mitigation of Bias Ground Rules (recommended but may not be enough to
mitigate, see e.g. Nortel)
– Multi-contractor Teams
– Use of Independent 3rd Party (FFRDCs, e.g. MITRE)
– Level of autonomous government decision-making
– Use of a conflict-free Subcontractor
•
Reserve the Right of Recusal from Bidding on Tasking/Task Orders
– This right must be explicit
– Must be feasible, i.e. not affect technical mission, award fee, or CPAR
Bias Type Issues Are the Most Difficult to Overcome but proposed new FAR 9.5
recognizes use of a conflict- free subcontractor may mitigate all types of OCI
Post-Award OCI Management
• Review contract fully to ensure no other OCI obligations, (e.g. 120 day
reporting requirement)
• Implementation of OCI measures:
–
DO NOT SIMPLY FILE AWAY PLAN , IMPLEMENT IT!
–
Set Up of OCI Training: slides, format, logistics (slides should be specific
to the Plan and explain why there is a Plan on THIS program)
–
Subcontracts: make sure flow-down in subcontract agreement; make sure
subcontract employees get OCI training
–
Brief program management/PMO/Sr. Management
–
Establish Tasking or TO screening process, if applicable
–
Set Employee restrictions, if applicable
• Audits: set up process to perform audits
BE DILIGENT ABOUT RECOGNIZING AND AVOIDING OCI SITUATIONS:
those who interact day-to-day with the government are in the most vulnerable
position to create OCI issues
Auditing Compliance
• OCI Plan Audit Provisions
– who did you state must audit?
o Program self-audit?
• depending on the level of OCI risk or type of program, e.g. an IDIQ with no task orders with
any OCI risk determined, this may be an appropriate approach, however, the auditor should
still be a position not directly responsible for program performance
o Independent audit?
• What resources do you have to perform audits independently? Do you have established OCI
audit practices?
o Subcontractor Audits?
• How are you going to audit subcontractors? On-site? Require annual certification?
– Internal Auditors:
o usually provide general oversight to your company’s OCI policies & practices, not
necessarily your Plan’s auditor, but can be a resource
– Independent Auditor: could be your internal audit department, or a functional department that is not
responsible for, or does not support, the program being audited
– Government Audits: OCI plans are not usually audited by government but many agencies are now
requiring an annual certification of compliance.
• Interval:
generally OCI audits should be performed on a random basis, but usually no less than annually
Subcontractor/Teammate OCI Management
• Working with teammates should require disclosure of any OCI issues
(particularly any prior RFP support to the Government)
– If OCI certification required, it must be on behalf of their entire
corporation
• Teammate must disclose any related OCI Plans
• If teammate discloses any potential OCI, subcontractor must
also propose a mitigation plan
– Teammates must agree to follow the prime’s OCI plan being
submitted, if applicable
• Depending on number of subcontractors/teammates this can
be time intensive
• Subcontractors must be subject to audit of their compliance
with any OCI Plan
Heightened Due Diligence Requirements; Prime Responsible For
Subcontractor Yet It’s Their Proprietary Information
Common OCI Myths
??? “If the RFP does not have an OCI clause or requirement, there is no OCI risk”

False, Bidders must be aware, the OCI risk is to your next proposal, of which the
government may not have noted or known of any concerns……also, there may be a
different CO/PCO for the related procurement
??? “Opportunities below a certain $$ amount do not need to be reviewed”

False, all SOWs that indicate a potential OCI should be reviewed
??? “Re-competes do not need to be reviewed”

False, all RFPs that contain an OCI Clause and all SOWs that indicate a potential
OCI should be reviewed- there could be new work or other circumstances may have
arisen that change the risk scenario. Also, Government OCI policies may have
changed
??? “So long as we have our folks sign NDAs we’re covered”

False, while NDAs provide some protection, and in some cases may be enough, each
potential OCI must be reviewed to determine the best mitigation strategy
??? “An OCI firewall will resolve all possible OCI issues”

False, while firewalls may resolve an unequal access to information OCI issue,
firewalls alone cannot overcome bias or impaired objectivity
Summary
 Review of the SOW/SOO is the key to determining any
potential OCI risk
 Vet/Screen employees BEFORE assigning them to proposal
support and/or contract performance
 Full and timely disclosures to the PCO protects both the
government and the contractor
 Although the OCI environment continues to evolve it remains
that robust OCI processes, compliance, awareness and
disclosures are essential to OCI risk management
 Collaboration helps both industry and government,
Disclose – Discuss - Resolve
Questions?
Questions?
RECENT GAO DECISIONS
AT&T Government Solutions, Inc B-407720; B-407720.2 January 30, 2013.
DIGEST: Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of potential unequal access to information
and impaired objectivity organizational conflicts of interests (OCIs) is dismissed as academic
where, three days prior to our statutory 100-day deadline, the agency waived any OCI concerns
under the authority granted by section 9.503 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
[Dan Gordon made this observation on the GW Contracts Law site: “An interesting GAO
decision involving an agency's (eleventh-hour) waiver of an organizational conflict of interest.
Note that the OCI involved unequal access to nonpublic information, which the proposed FAR
rule would not have treated as an OCI, so that it could presumably not be waived, if the proposed
rule were final.”]
McKissack-URS Partners, JV B-406489.7 January 9, 2013.
DIGEST: 1. Protest that awardee’s use of a former government employee in connection with an
architect-engineer Brooks Act procurement provided the firm with an unfair competitive
advantage due to the employee’s access to the protesters’ proprietary information is denied
where the contracting officer reasonably concluded that the information at issue was not
competitively useful in the current procurement.
2. Protest that evaluation board members were biased in favor of awardee based on the awardee’s
use of a consultant who had previously supervised several of the evaluation board members at a
time when he worked for the government is denied where the contracting officer’s investigation
revealed no improper contacts and the protesters failed to provide any evidence of bias beyond
mere suspicion and innuendo.
RECENT GAO DECISIONS
Diversified Collection Services, Inc. B-406958.3; B-406958.4 ,January 8, 2013.
DIGEST: 1. Protest that firm should have been disqualified from competition due to a
significant impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest is denied, where the
agency reasonably concluded that the vendor, if awarded the task order, would not be in
a position to evaluate the services it provides to commercial customers.
Science Applications International Corporation B-406921; B-406921.2 October 1, 2012.
DIGEST:3. Agency’s investigation of the awardee’s alleged unequal access to
information organizational conflict of interest related to the awardee’s hiring of a
government employee was reasonable, where the agency determined that the employee
did not have access to non-public, source selection information, and where the record
shows the employee did not assist the awardee in writing its proposal.
Science Applications International Corporation B-406899 September 26, 2012.
DIGEST: 1. Protest of an agency’s organizational conflict of interest (OCI)
determination is denied where agency reasonably investigated protester’s and awardee’s
possible OCI and the protester does not show that the agency’s judgment is
unreasonable.
RECENT GAO DECISIONS
Re-Engineered Business Solutions, Inc. B-405662.4; B-405662.5 September 19, 2012.
DIGEST: 1. Protester’s allegations of bias with regard to a former agency employee
provide no basis to sustain the protest where the allegedly biased employee left the
agency before the final evaluation and source selection decision took place.
Oklahoma State University B-406865 September 12, 2012.
DIGEST: 3. Protest of alleged organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the
protester has not identified any hard facts indicating the existence, or potential
existence, of a conflict.
Guident Technologies, Inc. B-405112.3 , June 4, 2012
DIGEST: 1. Protest that awardee had an unmitigated impaired objectivity organizational
conflict of interest was timely filed after the agency selected the awardee for award,
notwithstanding the fact that the protester knew, prior to award, that the awardee was
competing under the solicitation, and the basis for the alleged conflict
McKissack-URS Partners, JV B-406489.2; B-406489.3; B-406489.4 May 22, 2012.
DIGEST: 2. Where the agency has not made a final determination concerning an alleged
conflict of interest, a protest based on such an allegation is premature.
RECENT GAO DECISIONS
NikSoft Systems Corp. B-406179 February 29, 2012.
DIGEST: 1. Agency request that protest be dismissed on the basis that the protester is not
an interested party due to an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied, where the
agency has not shown its OCI determination is based on hard facts showing the protester
had unequal access to competitively-useful information.
McTech Corporation, B-406100; B-406100.2 February 8, 2012
DIGEST : 1. Agency reasonably concluded that the protester had an organizational conflict
of interest and properly eliminated it from the competition under a solicitation for the award
of a construction contract, where the agency found that the close relationship between the
protester and the designer of the construction project constituted an apparent conflict of
interest that created the appearance of an unfair competitive advantage.
2. Protester’s contention that information not considered by the contracting officer in the
initial determination that the protester had an organizational conflict of interest (OCI)
cannot be considered by GAO in resolving a protest challenging this determination is
denied because an agency may provide further information and analysis regarding the
existence of an OCI at any time during the course of a protest, and GAO will consider such
information in determining whether the contracting officer’s OCI determination is
reasonable.
RECENT GAO DECISIONS
Y&K Maintenance, Inc. B-405310.6 February 2, 2012.
DIGEST: 2. Protest based on an alleged violation of the Procurement Integrity Act is
denied, where, consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements, the agency
investigated the alleged disclosure of information by an agency employee to another offeror
and found that the documents provided were publicly available and not procurement
sensitive and where the protester has not shown that it was competitively prejudiced.
TriCenturion, Inc.; SafeGuard Services, LLC B-406032; B-406032.2; B-406032.3; B406032.4 January 25, 2012.
DIGEST: 4. Protest that the award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest is
denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the potential
areas of concern were addressed by a mitigation plan that included details and milestones.
AdvanceMed Corporation; TrustSolutions, LLC B-404910.4; B-404910.5; B-404910.6; B404910.9; B-404910.10 January 17, 2012.
DIGEST: 1. Protest that the award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest is
denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that the potential
areas of concern either did not constitute significant conflicts that warranted
disqualification of the awardee, or were significant conflicts that were adequately mitigated.