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.