The Government Accountability Office has dismissed allegations that ManTech International had several conflicts of interest and should not have won a $96.5 million Army contract.
MAG Aerospace was the incumbent contractor on the Network Modernization & Mission Network Technical Service Support program, known as NetMod. The contract provides technical support to the Army’s tactical network.
After ManTech won the recompete in February 2025, MAG filed its protest complaining that ManTech had all three types of organizational conflicts of interest: biased ground rules, unequal access to information and impaired objectivity.
MAG’s protest led the Army to take a corrective action in March and investigate the OCI allegations.
The Army’s investigation found no actual or potential conflicts, clearing the way for a re-award of the contract to ManTech in August. MAG again filed a second protest in November.
But while that protest was pending, the Army said it would waive the OCI rules and procedures as in the service branch’s best interest. With that waiver, GAO dismissed the OCI allegations as moot.
GAO then denied MAG’s challenge to the Army’s finding of ManTech as a responsible contractor and the best value for the program, according to the protest decision unsealed Thursday.
For the responsibility challenge, MAG cited an administrative agreement from July 31 between ManTech and the Homeland Security Department about mischarged time and overbillings. The Army’s contracting officer did not consider the agreement in his determination because the person could not find it in searches.
GAO said the contracting officer was not aware of it, therefore he did not ignore it. The legal standard for overturning a responsibility determination is whether contracting officers ignore those determinations.
MAG cannot go to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with its protest because this is a task order under the RS3 vehicle. GAO holds sole authority for task order protests.
ManTech can now begin working on the contract, which runs for five years at an evaluated price of $96.5 million.
Read the full article here