Peraton loses protest over Booz Allen's Army Research Lab contract

CORRECTION: This article has been corrected. ManTech did not claim Booz Allen should have been disqualified as not responsible. Only Peraton made that claim involving an Army cyber contract.

Peraton failed to convince the Government Accountability Office that Booz Allen Hamilton was not a responsible contractor when the Army awarded the latter contract to support the Research Facilitation Lab.

Peraton argued that the Army failed to fully consider the implications of a False Claims Act lawsuit Booz Allen settled in July 2023.

GAO denied that claim because the Army contracting officer was not aware of the settlement, so that person did not act improperly.

Peraton also alleged that Booz Allen had an unfair advantage from hiring a former agency employee. GAO denied that argument because the employee only had access to information that was publicly available. The Army’s investigation showed that the person worked in a different component of the research lab.

The contract was awarded in the spring and Peraton filed its protest in May. The value of the contract has not been disclosed.

In a separate protest, Peraton also argued that the Booz Allen should not have won a $245 million Army cyberwarfare contract because of the False Claims Act settlement.

ManTech International is also protesting that award, but only Peraton raised the False Claims Act allegation.

Regarding the cyber contract, the Army agreed to take a corrective action to re-evaluate technical proposals and oral presentations. The Army will also re-examine cost evaluations and make a new award decision.

The Army also will look at how it determined that Booz Allen was a responsible contractor.

Given that GAO just denied a similar claim, it appears to be an uphill battle to get Booz Allen declared not responsible.