Emissary LLC, the incumbent contractor, protested the Department of Defense’s Washington Headquarters Services’ award of a contract to Gemini Industries for technical support services to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict. (See emissary LLC, B-422388.3, et al., July 29, 2025.) GAO sustained the protest, finding that the agency conducted a flawed technical evaluation, improperly credited past performance, and failed to evaluate the impact of an OCI mitigation plan that altered the awardee’s technical approach. This is a rare case where a protester prevailed on both evaluation and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) grounds, offering a roadmap for what can go wrong when agencies rush or overlook key details in an awardee’s proposal.
The Decision
GAO sustained the protest in part and denied it in part, ruling that:
- Flawed Technical Evaluation: GAO found the agency unreasonably credited Gemini with meeting the solicitation’s labor requirements despite omitting two months of base period work and failing to clearly demonstrate that its proposed key personnel met mandatory experience thresholds. Evaluators relied on assumptions, not facts in the record.
- Phase-In Plans Were Treated as Equal When They Were Not: Emissary proposed to begin full performance on day one. Gemini planned to ramp up gradually. GAO concluded the agency failed to assess these differences qualitatively, even though the solicitation required it.
- OCI Mitigation Was Not Fully Considered: The agency identified a potential impaired objectivity OCI arising from Gemini’s concurrent work for U.S. Special Operations Command. Gemini proposed a mitigation plan that altered its management approach, but the agency failed to evaluate how that change impacted Gemini’s technical proposal. GAO held that this failure was material and required corrective action.
- Past Performance Credit Not Supported: One of Gemini’s references involved primarily IT services, which were not clearly relevant to the policy and legislative support tasks required by the performance work statement (PWS). GAO found the agency’s relevance determination unreasonable.
- Prejudice Shown: The agency had cited Gemini’s breadth of past performance as a key discriminator in the award decision. GAO concluded that fixing the evaluation errors could change the outcome, and thus sustained the protest.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Your Proposal Must Tell the Whole Story, so Don’t Rely on Assumptions: If key personnel need specific experience, make sure their résumés explicitly document it. Evaluators cannot fill in the blanks.
- If You Change Your Proposal to Address an OCI, It Must Be Re-Evaluated: OCI mitigation is not just a compliance checkbox. If your solution alters your approach, the agency must consider the performance impact.
- Make Your Phase-In Plan a Strength, Not a Placeholder: A faster or more capable ramp-up should be clearly articulated, and agencies should evaluate those differences meaningfully.
- Past Performance Must Be Relevant and Clearly Tied to the PWS: Even good references won’t help if they aren’t aligned to the work required. Breadth alone doesn’t mean better.
- It’s Rare, but OCI Protests Can Win: This case is a reminder that OCI allegations that are fact-based and well-documented can result in a sustained protest.
[View source.]
