TITLE: B-297022.3, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, January 9, 2006
BNUMBER: B-297022.3
DATE: January 9, 2006
*******************************************************************
B-297022.3, Alion Science & Technology Corporation, January 9, 2006
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective
Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: Alion Science & Technology Corporation
File: B-297022.3
Date: January 9, 2006
L. James D'Agostino, Esq., Richard L. Moorhouse, Esq., David T. Hickey,
Esq., John G. Stafford, Esq., and Andrew Belofsky, Esq., Greenberg
Traurig, LLP; J. Scott Hommer III, Esq., and Kier X. Bancroft, Esq.,
Venable LLP, for the protester.
Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Jason N. Workmaster, Esq., and Kara M. Klaas,
Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, for Advanced Engineering & Sciences, a
division of ITT Industries, Inc., an intervenor.
Flayo O. Kirk, Esq., Defense Information Systems Agency, for the agency.
Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest is sustained where record does not support the agency's assessment
regarding the "maximum potential" for organizational conflicts of interest
to occur during awardee's contract performance where awardee, a
manufacturer of spectrum-dependent products, will perform various
activities requiring subjective judgments that may affect the sales or use
of spectrum-dependent products of the awardee, the awardee's competitors,
and the awardee's customers.
DECISION
Alion Science & Technology Corporation protests the Defense Information
Systems Agency's (DISA) award of a contract to Advanced Engineering &
Sciences, a division of ITT Industries, Inc. (ITT), under request for
proposals (RFP) No. HC1047-05-R-4009 to provide electromagnetic spectrum
engineering services for DISA's Joint Spectrum Center (JSC). Alion
protests that, in light of ITT's significant interests in the manufacture
and marketing of spectrum-dependent products, the agency failed to
reasonably consider the extent of organizational conflicts of interest
(OCI) that are likely to impair ITT's objectivity in performing the
contract requirements.[1]
We sustain the protest.
BACKGROUND
On February 23, 2005, DISA issued RFP No. HC1047-05-R-4009, seeking
proposals to "provide the JSC with Electromagnetic Spectrum Engineering
(ESE) services to facilitate improved mission effectiveness."[2] RFP at 4.
The solicitation elaborated that "[t]he JSC vision is to be recognized as
the DOD technical center of excellence and provider of choice for
electromagnetic spectrum management and E3 expertise." Id. With regard to
contract requirements, the solicitation laid out the following task areas,
and specific activities, the contractor will be expected to perform:
1. Operational Spectrum Support -- deploying qualified spectrum managers
in support of Combatant Command (COCOM) or Joint Task Force (JTF)
contingencies; deploying technical experts to take field measurements and
analyze incidents of electromagnetic interference (EMI), determine causes,
and recommend methods of resolution; and developing, operating, and
maintaining DOD's standard spectrum management systems.
2. E3 and Spectrum Engineering -- coordinating electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC) standards; analyzing equipment and systems for
potential E3 [electromagnetic environmental effects] problems and
recommending solutions; performing RF [radio frequency] measurements;
developing and conducting E3 training; assisting the acquisition community
by assessing E3; determining operational frequency bands; and providing
assistance in acquiring host nation approval for equipment operation.
3. Modeling and Simulation -- developing and maintaining spectrum
management automated tools and analytical models to perform EMC analyses.
4. Information Management -- collecting and maintaining extensive data on
spectrum dependent equipment and spectrum usage to support tactical,
training, or sustaining-base operations, operational assessments, and
research and development efforts; and providing and maintaining a
capability to store and retrieve documents such as technical reports,
project notebooks, and other related technical documents.
5. Research and Evaluate Emerging Technologies -- determining
electromagnetic spectrum implications and opportunities for exploitation
by DOD.
6. Technical Advice -- analyzing national and international
electromagnetic spectrum issues and advising executive decision-makers on
the technical viability of policy and implementation options.
Id.
The solicitation advised offerors that the agency's source selection would
reflect a "best overall value" determination, and that proposals would be
evaluated with regard to three factors: technical,[3] past performance,[4]
and cost/price. RFP at 62.
On or before the April 25, 2005 closing date, proposals were submitted by
three offerors, including Alion and ITT. Thereafter, the proposals were
evaluated, discussions were conducted with Alion and ITT, [5] and revised
proposals were requested, submitted, and evaluated.[6] With regard to the
technical factor, Alion's proposal was rated "Green" with [deleted] risk;
ITT's proposal was rated "Green" with "medium" risk. With regard to the
past performance factor, Alion's proposal was rated [deleted]; ITT's
proposal was rated "Blue" with "low" risk. Agency Report, Tab 8, at 17.
Alion's evaluated cost/price was [deleted]; ITT's evaluated cost/price was
$500,915,000. Id. at 18.
On July 22, ITT's proposal was selected for award; a contract was awarded
on August 5. On August 12, Alion filed a protest challenging that award on
various bases, including that the agency failed to reasonably consider
ITT's organizational conflicts of interest. Thereafter, the agency advised
this Office that it was taking corrective action in response to Alion's
protest; the agency's corrective action included a request that offerors
submit revised OCI plans and an amendment of the RFP to eliminate
consideration of OCIs as an evaluation "element," instead advising
offerors that OCI issues would be considered under the provisions of
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 9.5 on a "go/no go" basis.
Agency Report, Tab 19; Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 12-13.[7] We dismissed
Alion's August 12 protest pending completion of the agency's corrective
actions.[8]
Thereafter, ITT and Alion each submitted revised OCI plans. Agency Report,
Tab 21. ITT's plan identified various potential OCIs it could encounter
under several of the performance areas and stated that, where
impaired-objectivity OCI's are anticipated to occur, it will segregate
those conflicted contract requirements for performance by "one of ITT's
team members" that are separated from ITT by a "firewall." Agency Report,
Tab 21, ITT OCI Plan, at 14. Thereafter, the agency performed an
assessment of the activities contemplated for performance with the stated
objective of determining the extent of ITT's conflicts. Based on this
assessment, the agency concluded that "the maximum potential for impaired
objectivity OCI occurrences is 15% of the total ESE contract projects."
[9] Agency Report, Tab 25, Addendum to Source Selection Authority
Decision, at 3. Based on the agency's assessment regarding the "maximum
potential" for OCIs, and ITT's stated intent to rely on "firewalled" team
members to perform conflicted portions of the contract, the agency
concluded that ITT's OCI plan was acceptable.
On September 22, the agency "reconfirmed" its prior award to ITT. Agency
Report, Tab 25, at 3. This protest followed.
DISCUSSION
Alion protests that the agency failed to recognize the extent of OCIs that
will impair ITT's objectivity in performing the contract requirements.
Further, Alion maintains that, because the agency failed to recognize the
extent of ITT's impaired-objectivity OCIs, its evaluation of ITT's
proposal failed to reasonably consider the effect that ITT's necessary
reliance on "firewalled" team members will have on the quality of ITT's
overall contract performance. We agree.
Contracting officers are required to identify and evaluate potential
conflicts of interest as early in the acquisition process as possible. FAR
sect. 9.504. The FAR provides that an OCI exists when, because of
activities or relationships with other persons or organizations, a person
or organization is unable or potentially unable to render impartial
assistance or advice to the government. See FAR sect. 2.101. Situations
that create potential conflicts are further discussed in FAR subpart 9.5
and the decisions of this Office; specifically, an "impaired objectivity"
OCI is created when a contractor's judgment and objectivity in performing
a contract's requirements may be impaired due to the fact that the
substance of the contractor's performance has the potential to affect
other interests of the contractor. FAR sections 9.505, 9.508; PURVIS Sys.,
B-293807.3, B-293807.4, Aug. 16, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 177; Science
Applications Int'l Corp., B-293601 et al., May 3, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 96;
Aetna Govt. Health Plans, Inc.; Foundation Health Fed. Servs., Inc.,
B-254397.15 et al., July 27, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 129 at 13.
In reviewing this protest, we considered the description of contract
requirements reflected in the solicitation, as well as the basis for the
agency's conclusion that "the maximum potential for impaired objectivity
OCI occurrences is 15%" of the total contract requirements. We also
considered the information provided by ITT with its OCI plan, which
included its 2004 annual report, along with other publicly available
information, including information contained on ITT's Internet website.
The publicly available information we reviewed leaves no doubt that ITT
has multiple financial interests with regard to manufacturing and
marketing of spectrum-dependent products to the U.S. government, to
foreign governments, and to commercial customers worldwide.[10] Further,
ITT's public statements make clear that its financial interests and the
success of its company are affected by a variety of factors, including
both domestic and foreign government regulations, ITT's ability to
continue to win contracts, and ITT's development and marketing of new
products.[11]
As noted above, the solicitation identified six task areas, along with
specifically described activities, that the contractor will be expected to
perform. In reaching its conclusion that "the maximum potential for
impaired objectivity OCI occurrences is 15%" of the total contract
requirements, the agency made assessments regarding potential OCIs under
each task area.
Task Area 1
With regard to task area 1, "Operational Spectrum Support," the
solicitation stated that the contractor will "analyze incidents of
electromagnetic interference (EMI), determine causes, and recommend
methods of resolution." RFP at 4. More specifically, the activities
anticipated under this task area include "providing
communications-electronics equipment coverage analysis, providing
recommendations for operational frequency assignments, assisting in the
development of electromagnetic environments (EMEs) for use in engineering
studies, providing electronic warfare (EW) deconfliction, analyzing
microwave/troposcatter links for link availability and providing training
in analysis techniques and spectrum management tool operation." Agency
Report, Tab 24, at 2. Finally, the agency's source selection plan
indicates that ITT's activities under this task area will involve
"deployed DOD systems, possible coalition forces systems/equipments and
[the] surrounding private sector environment." Agency Report, Tab 1,
Source Selection Plan, at 48.
In responding to the agency's request to submit an OCI plan, ITT
acknowledged that performance of the tasks anticipated under task area 1
could create impaired-objectivity OCIs. For example, ITT's OCI plan
expressly recognizes that an OCI will arise if, in analyzing an
electromagnetic interference incident, ITT is required to analyze one of
its own products. Agency Report, Tab 23, ITT OCI Mitigation Plan, at 2.
Nonetheless, in assessing ITT's "maximum potential" for OCIs, the agency
concluded:
This task area neither places the contractor in a situation where
objectivity may be impaired nor does it provide an unfair competitive
advantage for award of any Federal contract. No activity associated with
this task area is related to award of any Federal contract. Therefore, no
known potential for conflict of interest exists within this task area.
Agency Report, Tab 24, at 2.
The agency's conclusion that "no known potential for conflict of interest
exists" is inconsistent with ITT's own acknowledgment that an
impaired-objectivity OCI will be created if it is required to analyze its
own products in the context of an electromagnetic interference incident
(in which it will be required to "determine causes, and recommend methods
of resolution"). The agency's conclusion is not reasonable. In addition to
the OCI created by ITT's assessment of its own products, it is clear that
a similar OCI will arise with regard to assessment of products
manufactured by an ITT competitor, as well as assessment of products
deployed by ITT customers--which, as noted above, include various foreign
governments that may compete for spectrum access. Here, the agency's
procurement record is devoid of any meaningful agency analysis regarding
the scope of spectrum-dependent products manufactured by ITT, the scope of
such products manufactured by ITT's competitors, or any consideration of
the spectrum-related interests of ITT's customer base. Further, the
agency's contemporaneous record suggests that, in assessing potential
conflicts, the agency considered only activities "related to award of [a]
Federal contract." Id. As discussed above, potential impaired-objectivity
OCIs are not limited to acquisition-related activities; rather,
impaired-objectivity OCIs are created any time the performance of a
contract requirement involves the contractor's exercise of judgment that
could affect other contractor-related interests. See PURVIS Sys., Inc.,
supra; Science Applications Int'l Corp., supra.
On the record here, where ITT will clearly be required to perform analysis
and make recommendations regarding spectrum-dependent products that may be
manufactured by ITT or by ITT's competitors, or that are deployed by ITT
customers, we find no reasonable basis for the agency's conclusion that
the activities under this task area create "no known potential" for
impaired-objectivity OCIs during ITT's contract performance.
Task Area 2
With regard to task area 2, "E3 and Spectrum Engineering," the
solicitation stated that the anticipated activities include: "coordinating
electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) standards; analyzing equipment and
systems for potential E3 problems and recommending solutions; performing
RF [radio frequency] measurements; developing and conducting E3 training;
assisting the acquisition community by assessing E3; determining
operational frequency bands; and providing assistance in acquiring host
nation approval for equipment operation." RFP at 4.
In evaluating this task area, the agency concluded there was some
potential for ITT to experience impaired-objectivity OCIs in performing
the activities contemplated. Agency Report, Tab 24, at 2-4. Indeed, 12 of
the "maximum" 15 percent of contract activities that could create OCIs
occur in connection with activities under this task area. Id. at 4.
However, in making its calculations with regard to this task area, it
appears the agency considered only acquisition-related activities as
creating impaired-objectivity OCIs. Specifically, JSC's Chief, Plans and
Resources Division, who was responsible for directing the agency's
assessment effort, described the agency's review efforts, stating that
agency managers were directed to review past contract activities "[t]o
determine the percentage of work associated with source selection
activities . . . prior to the source selection/acquisition decision."
Agency Report, Tab 24, Sykes Memorandum for the Record (Sept. 21, 2005).
[12] Again, as discussed above, potential impaired-objectivity OCIs are
created any time the performance of a contract requirement requires the
contractor's exercise of judgment that could affect other
contractor-related interests--and are not limited to activities related to
acquisitions. See PURVIS Sys., Inc., supra; Science Applications Int'l
Corp., supra.
In any event, as noted above, the agency's procurement record contains no
agency documentation regarding the scope of ITT-manufactured products that
could be involved in the activities under this task area, the scope of
such products manufactured by ITT's competitors, or the scope of such
products deployed by ITT's customers. In light of the type of activities
being performed here--including analyses, measurements, assessments, and
determinations relative to various types of spectrum-dependent products,
as well as ITT's involvement in "acquiring host nation approval for
equipment operation,"--the record does not adequately support the agency's
conclusion that ITT will incur impaired-objectivity OCI's under this task
area on only a limited basis.
Task Area 6
With regard to task area 6, "Technical Advice," the solicitation states
that performance in this area will involve "analyzing national and
international electromagnetic spectrum issues and advising executive
decision-makers on the technical viability of policy and implementation
options." More specifically, the agency record states that activities to
be performed under this task area will include:
providing senior technical staff to evaluate proposed and existing
spectrum policy at both the national and international levels.
Implications of World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) agenda items and
decisions will be evaluated as to their implication to DOD access to the
spectrum. This task area includes attending meetings; preparing and
presenting technical papers and briefings; and performing technical
analyses to determine the implication of new and existing policy to DOD
spectrum access.
Agency Report, Tab 24, at 7.
There is no dispute that, in recent years, the use of spectrum in wireless
applications has expanded dramatically and that, with the increased
demand, the spectrum has become crowded, leading to sometimes contentious
disputes between government and commercial users over access to
spectrum.[13] In responding to the agency's request for an OCI plan, ITT
expressly acknowledged that activities under this task create potential
impaired-objectivity OCIs, stating:
A potential conflict could relate to ITT's development of new DOD products
or technology that can operate only in specific portions of the spectrum
other than that which DOD is advocating. A potential OCI could also
include advocating defense of current DOD spectrum allocations from
encroachment by other spectrum users or access to additional spectrum to
satisfy future DOD requirements.
Agency Report, Tab 23, at 5.
Nonetheless, in performing its assessment of potential
impaired-objectivity OCIs, and reaching its conclusion that the "maximum
potential for impaired objectivity OCI occurrences is 15%" of the total
contract requirements, the agency concluded that none of the activities to
be performed under this task area created potential impaired-objectivity
OCIs, stating: "Participating in the analysis of spectrum issues and
providing advice on policy . . . is not viewed as a risk for any
contractor bias." Agency Report, Tab 24, at 7. We disagree.
ITT manufactures and markets multiple spectrum-dependent products to the
U.S. government, foreign government, and commercial customers worldwide.
Further, where DOD is competing for spectrum access with other users,
including industry and foreign governments, DOD policies, strategies,
regulations and procedures regarding contentious spectrum-related issues
are likely to affect the sales or use of spectrum dependent products
manufactured by ITT or ITT's competitors, as well as such products
deployed by ITT customers. As discussed above, under this contract, ITT
will "provid[e] senior technical staff to evaluate proposed and existing
spectrum policy at both the national and international levels," and ITT's
activities will include "presenting technical papers and briefings" and
"performing technical analyses to determine the implication of new and
existing policy to DOD spectrum access." Agency Report, Tab 24, at 7. All
of these activities involve ITT's exercise of subjective judgment, and the
results of such judgments may have a positive or negative effect on the
sale or use of spectrum-dependent products manufactured by ITT, those
manufactured by ITT's competitors, and those deployed by ITT customers. On
this record, we find no reasonable basis for the agency's conclusion that
performance of such activities creates no potential for
impaired-objectivity OCIs for ITT. Further, because of the interrelated
nature of the activities involved, they do not appear, on this record, to
reasonably lend themselves to segregation for performance by ITT's
"firewalled" team members.
Overall, our review of the record leads us to conclude that the agency's
assessment of potential impaired-objectivity OCI's created by ITT's
performance of the anticipated contract activities is not adequately
supported by the record.[14] Specifically, in light of the significant
spectrum-related interests of ITT, ITT's competitors, and ITT's customers,
that may well be affected by ITT's contract performance, the agency's
failure to meaningfully consider the scope and extent of such
spectrum-related interests requires the conclusion that the agency's
assessment of the "maximum potential" for impaired-objectivity OCIs is
not, on the record here, reasonably supported.
In short, the record shows that the agency failed to reasonably identify
and evaluate potential OCIs associated with ITT's performance of this
contract and, accordingly, failed to reasonably evaluate the effect that
such OCIs will have on ITT's contract performance.[15]
The protest is sustained.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the agency reconsider the extent of ITT's
impaired-objectivity OCIs, taking into consideration the spectrum-related
interests of ITT, ITT's competitors, and ITT's customers, and document its
conclusions in that regard. We further recommend that the agency evaluate
the reasonable impact on the quality of performance that will be caused by
ITT's reliance on "firewalled" subcontractors to perform conflicted
contract requirements. Following such reconsideration and evaluation, we
recommend that the agency make a new source selection decision. We further
recommend that the agency reimburse Alion for the costs of filing and
pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Alion's
certified claim for costs, detailing the time spent and costs incurred,
must be submitted to the agency within 60 days of receiving this decision.
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1) (2005).
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
------------------------
[1] Alion also protests various other aspects of the agency's source
selection process. We have reviewed all of Alion's bases for protest and,
other than those related to the assessment of OCIs as discussed below,
find no bases for sustaining Alion's protest.
[2] With regard to JSC's mission, the solicitation stated: "The Joint
Spectrum Center (JSC) is a technically oriented center for all
electromagnetic (EM) spectrum matters supporting the Department of
Defense. The JSC mission is to enable effective and efficient use of the
electromagnetic spectrum and control of electromagnetic environmental
effects (E3) supporting national security and military objectives.
Additionally, JSC supports the EM/E3 analytical needs of Defense
components and other organizations on a reimbursable basis." RFP at 4.
[3] With regard to the technical factor, the solicitation established four
subfactors: technical approach, management plan, transition plan, and
organizational strategic quality assurance plan. Under the subfactor for
technical approach, the solicitation established evaluation "elements"
that corresponded to each of the task areas of contract performance. Under
the subfactor for management plan, the solicitation established several
evaluation "elements"--one of which was "organizational conflict of
interest plan." RFP at 64-66.
[4] The solicitation stated that the technical and past performance
factors were "comparatively equal," and that technical and past
performance combined were "significantly more important" than cost/price.
RFP at 62.
[5] The third offeror's proposal was eliminated from further consideration
based on the agency' evaluation of initial proposals, and that offeror has
not protested any aspect of this procurement; accordingly, our decision
does not further address the third offeror's proposal.
[6] With regard to evaluation under the technical and past performance
factors, the agency applied a color rating/narrative assessment evaluation
system. With regard to the technical factor, the following color ratings
and associated narrative assessments were applied: "Blue" ("proposal
exceeds requirements and clearly demonstrates the offeror's capability to
deliver exceptional performance"); "Green" (proposal is satisfactory; the
offeror is capable of meeting performance requirements"); "Yellow"
("proposal is minimally adequate; the offeror is most likely able to meet
performance requirements"); "Red" ("proposal is inadequate; the offeror
cannot meet performance requirements"). With regard to past performance,
the following color ratings and associated narrative assessments were
applied: "Blue" ("Highly relevant and very recent past performance in all
identified past performance efforts; excellent performance ratings");
"Green" ("Relevant and somewhat recent past performance in all identified
past performance efforts; acceptable performance ratings"); "Yellow"
("Somewhat relevant but not very recent past performance; mostly
acceptable performance ratings"); "Red" ("Little relevant past performance
identified; almost all unacceptable performance ratings"); "White"
("Completely lacks relevant performance history or past performance is
unavailable, not due [to] offeror's failure to provide information.").
Under the technical and past performance factors, the agency also
performed a risk assessment assigning ratings of "low," medium," or
"high." Agency Report, Tab 8, at 15-17.
[7] In resolving this protest, GAO conducted a hearing, during which
testimony was provided by various witnesses, including the agency's source
selection evaluation board chair, the contracting officer, and the source
selection authority.
[8] Alion also filed a protest challenging the changes effected by the RFP
amendment. We have considered Alion's assertions in that regard and
conclude that they provide no basis for sustaining the protest.
[9] The source selection authority elaborated on this projection, stating:
"The Government considers this [15%] estimate to be high and that the
actual number of specific tasks posing potential OCI will be significantly
lower." Id.
[10] By way of example, ITT has stated that it provides single channel
ground and airborne radios (SINCGAR), spectrum management systems, and
several types of radar systems to DOD. Additionally, ITT states that: "ITT
Industries is a global engineering and industrial manufacturing company
with leading positions in the markets that it serves. The company is a
major supplier of sophisticated military defense systems, and provides
advanced technical and operational services to a broad range of government
agencies." www.itt.com/downloads/defense12pg.pdf. ITT elaborates that it
has provided, or is providing, "Night vision equipment for Australian
Defence Forces," "Imagers for Japanese weather satellites," "Airborne
Self-Protection Jammers (ASPJ) for Republic of Korea," "Tactical
communications systems for U.K. armed forces," and "Air traffic control
radar systems for Brazilian Air Force." Id. ITT also states that it
markets various spectrum-dependent products to commercial customers. Id.
[11] In a publication dated March 5, 2005, under the heading
"Forward-Looking Statements," an ITT representative stated that ITT's
future performance will be affected by various factors, including
"government regulations and compliance therewith," "local regulations in
the countries in which the Company conducts its businesses," "changes in
technology," and "changes in . . . the identity of significant customers."
Presentation of Hank Driesse, President, ITT Defense (Mar. 3, 2005),
www.itt.com/ir/downloads/fbr_conference_05.pdf. More specifically, ITT
stated: "Our Defense Electronics & Services business will be affected by
factors including the level of defense funding by domestic and foreign
governments; our ability to receive contract awards; and our ability to
develop and market products and services for customers outside of
traditional markets." Id.
[12] Further, the column headings over the particular values and levels of
effort associated with all of the conflicted activities on which the
agency relies for its calculations under this task area describe the
activities as "Acq[uisition] related." Id. at 2.
[13] See generally Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee - IRAC
Representative Effectively Coordinate Federal Spectrum but Lack Seniority
to Advise on Contentious Policy Issues, GAO-04-1028, September 2004;
Spectrum Management - Better Knowledge Needed to Take Advantage of
Technologies that May Improve Spectrum Efficiency, GAO-04-666, May 2004.
[14] We do not view our discussion with regard to task areas 1, 2, and 6,
above, as a comprehensive OCI analysis of all contract activities. In
particular, our decision does not address the reasonableness of the
agency's assessment of potential OCIs in connection with the task areas
for "Modeling and Simulation," "Information Management," and "Research and
Evaluat[ion of] Emerging Technologies."
[15] We note that the FAR anticipates situations in which application of
the OCI provisions contained in FAR subpart 9.5 may not be in the
government's interest, and authorizes the waiver of such provisions by an
authority at a level not lower than head of the contracting activity. FAR
sect. 9.503. Here, no waiver was requested or approved.