1. Protest that agency unreasonably determined that the awardee did not have a “biased ground rules” organizational conflict of interest is sustained where the record shows that the awardee’s subcontractor provided procurement development services that put it in a position to affect the subsequent competition in its favor.
2. Protest that agency unreasonably determined that awardee did not have an “unequal access to information” organizational conflict of interest is sustained where the record shows that the awardee’s subcontractor had access to competitively useful, non-public information, and the drafts of the mitigation plans intended to prevent the disclosure of that information were not furnished to the agency until after the conclusion of the performance of the work covered by those plans.
3. Protest that agency unreasonably determined that the awardee did not have an “impaired objectivity” organizational conflict of interest is denied where the relationships between the awardee’s subcontractor and the firm that was its prime contractor on a prior task order are too attenuated to support such an allegation.
