Updated May 4, 2022  G2X TAKE: The protest by Lynchval related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and to provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has now been denied and the decision released.  Drawing a total of three bidders, this contract was awarded to Deloitte. Details on the award can be found here.    Decision:  “DIGEST - Protest that award was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest is denied where the record does not support allegations that the awardee drafted specifications or had access to non-public information that would have provided a competitive advantage, and where the protester’s assertions do not present the hard facts necessary to refute the agency’s conclusion that the awardee’s participation in this procurement was not barred by an impermissible conflict of interest.”  “DISCUSSION - Lynchval contends that Deloitte has two unmitigated OCIs that PBGC failed to reasonably identify and resolve. Protest at 12-16. The protester alleges that Deloitte has a biased ground rules OCI because Deloitte wrote the specifications for the T-PIMS solicitation. Id. at 13-15. The protester also argues that Deloitte has an unequal access to information OCI stemming from its performance of the PIMS Modernization contract, which required Deloitte to work closely with the agency. Protest at 15-16. Having considered all of Lynchval’s arguments, we find no basis to sustain the protest.7 The FAR requires a contracting officer to “[a]void, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts of interest before contract award,” so as to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might impair a contractor’s objectivity or provide an unfair competitive advantage. FAR 9.504(a)(2); FAR 9.505; Snell Enters., Inc., B-290113, B-290113.2, June 10, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 115 at 3. The situations in which OCIs arise, as addressed in FAR subpart 9.5 and the decisions of our Office, can be broadly categorized into three groups: biased ground rules, unequal access to non-public information, and impaired objectivity. Contracting officers must exercise “common sense, good judgment, and sound discretion” in assessing whether a potential conflict exists and in developing appropriate ways to resolve it; the primary responsibility for determining whether a conflict is likely to arise, and the resulting appropriate action, rests with the contracting agency. FAR 9.505; Alliant Techsystems, Inc., B-410036, Oct. 14, 2014, 2014 CPD ¶ 324 at 4. We review the reasonableness of a contracting officer’s OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agency’s, absent clear evidence that the agency’s conclusion is unreasonable. Systems Made Simple, Inc., B-412948.2, July 20, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 207 at 7; McConnell Jones Lanier & Murphy, LLP, B-409681.3, B-409681.4, Oct. 21, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 341 at 13. In this regard, the identification of conflicts of interest is a fact-specific inquiry that requires the exercise of 7 The protester raises other collateral arguments. Although our decision does not specifically address each of the protester’s arguments, we have carefully reviewed all of the arguments and find that none provides a basis on which to sustain the protest. Page 7 B-420295.4 considerable discretion. Systems Made Simple, Inc., supra; see Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A protester must identify “hard facts” that indicate the existence or potential existence of a conflict; mere inference or suspicion of an actual or potential conflict is not enough. ViON Corp.; EMC Corp., B-409985.4 et al., Apr. 3, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 141 at 10; see PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A] protest must identify ‘hard facts’; a mere inference or suspicion of an actual or apparent conflict is not enough.”). As detailed below, Lynchval’s protest arguments lack the hard facts required for our Office to sustain the protest. As a result, we have no basis to question the contracting officer’s conclusion that Deloitte’s participation in this procurement does not raise potential OCI concerns. Biased Ground Rules OCI Turning first to Lynchval’s biased ground rules arguments, a biased ground rules OCI arises where a firm, as part of its performance of a government contract, has in some sense set the ground rules for the competition for another government contract by, for example, writing the statement of work or providing materials upon which a statement of work is based. FAR 9.505-1, 9.505-2; Networking & Eng’g Techs., Inc., B-405062.4 et al., Sept. 4, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 219 at 10. In these cases, the primary concern is that the firm could skew the competition, whether intentionally or not, in favor of itself. Energy Sys. Grp., B-402324, Feb. 26, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 73 at 4. Lynchval alleges that Deloitte has a biased ground rules OCI arising from Deloitte’s performance of the PIMS Modernization contract. Protest at 12-15. Under that contract, Deloitte drafted specifications for the T-PIMS requirement, including the blueprint, roadmap, and future state of technology requirements and processes, which were included in the T-PIMS solicitation. Id. The protester alleges that the awardee’s creation of T-PIMS specifications puts Deloitte in a position to favor its own products or capabilities under the current requirement and therefore creates an unfair competitive advantage…”  “DECISION-  Lynchval Systems Worldwide, Inc. (Lynchval), a small business of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Deloitte Consulting, LLP (Deloitte), of Arlington, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 16PBGC21R0010, issued by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) for services developing and supporting the single-employer Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) technology modernization effort. The protester contends that the award to Deloitte was improper because Deloitte has organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs). We deny the protest.”  Read the full 11-page decision here.  Download the decision here: 720254 Updated January 27, 2022  G2X TAKE: A fresh protest has been levied by Lynchval Systems Worldwide related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.  No details are available as to the grounds for this latest action but will be shared as they are known. The listed due date for a decision is no later than April 28, 2022.  Drawing a total of three bidders, this contract was awarded to Deloitte. Details on the award can be found here.   Updated January 5, 2022  G2X TAKE: The protest by Lynchval Systems Worldwide related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has now been dismissed. No details have been provided as to the grounds for the challenge at this time, nor the reason for the dismissal.  Please note that a ‘dismissal’ by GAO does not necessarily mean the issue is resolved and oftentimes only indicates the contracting authority/agency has agreed to proactively take some corrective action to address a deficiency identified as part of the protest process.  Drawing a total of three bidders, this contract was awarded to Deloitte. Details on the award can be found here.  Updated November 5, 2021 G2X TAKE: A fresh protest has been levied by Lynchval Systems Worldwide related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation No details are available as to the grounds for this latest action, or for the prior decision but all will be shared as it is available. The listed due date for a decision is no later than February 9, 2022. Updated November 4, 2021  G2X TAKE: One protest by Lynchval Systems Worldwide related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has quickly been dismissed.  No details have been provided as to the grounds for the challenge at this time, nor the reason for the dismissal.  Please note that a ‘dismissal’ by GAO does not necessarily mean the issue is resolved and oftentimes only indicates the contracting authority/agency has agreed to proactively take some corrective action to address a deficiency identified as part of the protest process.  We also note a fresh protest by Lynchval Systems Worldwide with a listed due date for a decision of no later than February 9, 2022. Drawing a total of three bidders, this contract was awarded to Deloitte. Details on the award can be found here. Posted October 20, 2021  G2X TAKE: A protest has been levied by Lynchval Systems Worldwide related to this single-award IDIQ intended to develop a modernized Transformational Pension Insurance Modeling System (T-PIMS) and provide ongoing systems operation and maintenance for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.  No details are available as to the grounds for the protest at this time but they will be shared here as they are available. The listed due date for a decision is no later than January 21, 2022.  Drawing a total of three bidders, this contract was awarded to Deloitte. Details on the award can be found here.