It's possible to bring supervisory counterparts from other locations in to evaluate the proposals. Although these "outsiders" may come from the same functions at other locations, they may not be completely knowledgeable of the studied functions' specific products and services. Since the evaluation process can take some time, it may not be possible for these "outsiders" to take time away from their day-to-day responsibilities to accomplish this task. This leads to the potential of "non-subject matter" individuals performing these evaluations, all to eliminate a potential "conflict of interest" complaint from an unsuccessful offeror.

The General Accounting Office (GAO) has made several decisions concerning such A-76 conflicts of interest concerning the assignment of evaluation team members. A recent article on this issue, published on the GAO website stated:

We have held that, in conducting an A-76 procurement, the appointment of an evaluation panel where a large majority of evaluators hold positions in the function under study which are subject to being contracted out creates a conflict of interest that is inconsistent with the standards mandated by the FAR. DZS/Baker LLC; Morrison Knudsen Corp. B-281224 et al., Jan. 12, 1999, 99-1 CPD 19 at 7 (14 of 16 evaluators held positions that were subject to being contracted out). We have, however, also held that the appointment of evaluators who hold positions in the function under study is not necessarily improper if the positions are not directly affected, that is, are not in jeopardy of being contracted out. IT Facility Servs.-Joint Venture, B-285841, Oct. 17, 2000, 2000 CPD 177 at 12. Finally, even where a potential conflict of interest exists, we will not sustain a protest where the record demonstrates that there was no prejudice to the protester. See Battelle Memorial Inst., B-278673, Feb. 27, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¦ 107 at 6.