The GAO issued a sustained protest decision in February 2026 finding that DHS violated FAR Subpart 9.5 by awarding an EAGLE II task order to a firm whose consulting affiliate had provided technical advisory services used in drafting the task order's performance work statement. The decision requires DHS to exclude the awardee from the competition or conduct a thorough OCI investigation and document why mitigation measures are adequate, per the GAO's public decision record at gao.gov.
The access OCI pattern
This is a textbook "access OCI" — where a firm gains non-public information about a procurement through an advisory or consulting role, then competes for the resulting contract. GAO has consistently held that:
- Agencies must identify potential OCIs before award, not after protest
- A firm that helped write the PWS has an inherent access OCI that requires either mitigation or disqualification
- "We reviewed it and found no problem" without documented analysis is not adequate — GAO requires written OCI determinations with specific findings
How to use this decision
- If you lost a task order and know the awardee had an advisory role on the program, request the OCI review documentation in your debrief — agencies must provide it
- If you hold an advisory contract (CIO-SP3 IT advisory, IDIQ management support), document your own OCI firewall procedures to protect your ability to compete on follow-on work
- GAO sustained rate on OCI protests has risen — it's no longer a long-shot ground if the facts are there