Key Takeaways

• Corporate affiliation alone is not enough. When a solicitation does not establish a different standard, an offeror generally cannot rely on an affiliate’s experience or past performance merely because the companies are related. The proposal should explain how the affiliate will participate in performance or make its resources available.
• Offerors should identify the affiliate resources supporting performance. Contractors relying on affiliate experience should consider identifying specific personnel, systems, management capabilities, facilities, equipment, financial resources, or other capabilities the affiliate will contribute to the contract.
• GAO and the Court of Federal Claims are applying the same basic rule. In Battelle, GAO expressly relied on the Court of Federal Claims’ recent decision in Noblis MSD, LLC v. United States, providing contractors with recent authority from both principal bid protest forums on when an agency may credit affiliate experience.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently sustained a bid protest challenging an agency’s decision to credit an awardee with the experience and past performance of an affiliated company. In Battelle Memorial Institute, B-424575, B-424575.2 (Sept. 10, 2026), GAO concluded that the National Science Foundation (NSF) improperly credited KBR Services, LLC (KBR) with two contracts performed by an affiliate because KBR’s proposal did not adequately explain what resources or services the affiliate would actually contribute to performance of the new contract.

The decision provides an important reminder for contractors that corporate affiliation, standing alone, generally is not enough to receive evaluation credit for an affiliate’s experience or past performance. Where a solicitation does not provide a different standard, an offeror relying on an affiliate should explain how the affiliate will participate in performance and identify the personnel, systems, management capabilities, facilities, financial resources, or other resources that will be made available for the contract.

GAO’s decision is particularly notable because it expressly relied on the Court of Federal Claims’ (COFC) recent decision in Noblis MSD, LLC v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 667 (2026), reinforcing a consistent approach between GAO and the COFC on the use of affiliate experience.

NSF Credits KBR with Experience Performed by a Corporate Affiliate

NSF issued the solicitation for science and engineering support services for the United States Antarctic Policy and Programs. The solicitation contemplated a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 20-year ordering period and an $8 billion ceiling. Award would be made on a best-value basis considering prior experience, past performance, small business utilization, management approach, key personnel, small business participation, and price/cost. The non-price factors, combined, were significantly more important than price/cost.

KBR submitted five examples of prior experience. Three involved contracts performed by KBR, while two had been performed by an affiliated company. KBR described the affiliate as part of its “one-team delivery model” and identified the affiliate as part of a purpose-built team that would supplement KBR’s capabilities in critical mission areas. KBR also provided the affiliate’s Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) disclosure information.

NSF credited KBR with the affiliate’s experience, and that credit mattered. NSF determined that KBR demonstrated experience in 12 of 13 Statement of Work areas and rated KBR “High Confidence” for prior experience. The agency also relied on the affiliate’s contracts in evaluating KBR’s past performance.

NSF ultimately selected KBR over Battelle. Although Battelle was evaluated more favorably on prior experience and past performance, NSF determined that KBR’s advantages under the more important management approach and key personnel factors, along with KBR’s lower evaluated cost/price, made KBR’s proposal the best value.

Battelle protested, arguing, among other things, that NSF improperly credited KBR with its affiliate’s experience and past performance because KBR’s proposal did not demonstrate that the affiliate would be meaningfully involved in contract performance.

GAO Finds KBR Did Not Demonstrate Its Affiliate’s Meaningful Involvement

GAO agreed with Battelle and reiterated its longstanding rule that an agency may attribute the experience or past performance of an affiliated company to an offeror when the proposal demonstrates that the affiliate’s resources will affect the offeror’s performance. The relevant question is whether resources such as the affiliate’s workforce, management, facilities, systems, or other capabilities will actually be provided or relied upon during contract performance.

Importantly, GAO distinguished between merely identifying an affiliate and explaining what the affiliate will actually do.

Although KBR described its affiliate as part of a “one-team delivery model,” identified the affiliate as a member of the proposed team, and supplied its UEI and CAS information, GAO concluded that those facts did not establish meaningful involvement. KBR’s proposal did not identify specific personnel, systems, management tools, or other resources that the affiliate would dedicate to the contract. GAO explained that “vague statements of corporate unity or oblique references to general involvement” were insufficient.

The decision therefore illustrates an important distinction for proposal teams. An offeror does not necessarily have to show that the affiliate itself will perform a particular percentage of the work, but the proposal must provide enough information for the agency to understand how the affiliate’s resources bear on the offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

GAO contrasted KBR’s proposal with prior cases where affiliate experience was properly credited. For example, GAO has approved reliance on affiliate experience where a proposal committed an affiliate’s financial resources, including lines of credit and operating capital, or explained that an affiliate would provide equipment and training for senior personnel.

GAO Relies on the Court of Federal Claims’ Recent Noblis Decision

GAO also expressly relied on the COFC’s recent decision in Noblis MSD, LLC v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 667 (2026).

In Noblis, the COFC addressed a similar situation in which an awardee relied on the past performance of its parent company. The solicitation did not establish a specific standard governing affiliate past performance. After reviewing both GAO and COFC precedent, the COFC concluded that, when a solicitation is silent, an agency may consider the experience or past performance of an offeror’s affiliate or subcontractor so long as the proposal explains how that entity will be used to perform the contract.

The COFC found that identifying the corporate relationship was not enough because the proposal failed to explain which of the parent company’s systems, personnel, or other resources would be available for performance.

GAO applied the same reasoning in Battelle. Because NSF’s solicitation likewise did not specify what an offeror needed to demonstrate to receive credit for affiliate experience, GAO applied the default meaningful-involvement standard. Like the proposal at issue in Noblis, KBR’s proposal failed to identify what specific affiliate resources would support performance. As a result, GAO concluded that NSF lacked a sufficient factual basis to credit KBR with the affiliate’s experience and past performance.

The express reliance on Noblis is significant because it provides contractors with recent decisions from both principal bid protest forums applying substantially the same rule.

The Error Was Prejudicial Despite KBR’s Lower Evaluated Cost

NSF argued that even if it improperly credited the affiliate’s experience, Battelle was not competitively prejudiced. KBR had advantages under the management approach and key personnel, the two most important non-price factors, and also had a significantly lower evaluated cost/price. But GAO found a reasonable possibility of prejudice.

The affiliate’s experience filled an important gap in KBR’s proposal by demonstrating experience in laboratory and science support services. The source selection authority specifically relied on that experience when comparing KBR and Battelle. Without the affiliate references, GAO explained, Battelle potentially would have demonstrated a significantly greater advantage in relevant experience and likelihood of successful performance.

GAO therefore sustained this ground of protest and recommended that NSF reevaluate KBR’s proposal under the prior experience and past performance factors, conduct a new best-value tradeoff, and make a new source selection decision. GAO also recommended reimbursement of Battelle’s protest costs associated with the successful protest grounds.

What Contractors Should Consider When Relying on Affiliate Experience

Contractors should closely review the solicitation because an agency may establish its own requirements governing whether and how affiliate experience will be considered. But when the solicitation is silent, Battelle and Noblis indicate that simply identifying the corporate relationship or describing the companies as an integrated team may not be enough.

Instead, proposals should make the connection between the affiliate’s past work and the offeror’s future performance explicit. Contractors should consider identifying the affiliate resources that will actually support contract performance, such as personnel, management systems, technical capabilities, facilities, equipment, financing, or other specific resources. Where possible, the proposal should also explain how those resources will be made available and what role they will play in performing the contract. If an affiliate’s track record is important to the proposal, the proposal should explain why that track record bears on the entity that will actually perform the contract.

Please contact the author if you have any questions.