GAO Sustains Protest by Anika Systems Over USCIS Task Order Award

In a decision issued on April 8, 2025, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a protest filed by Anika Systems, Inc. regarding a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) task order awarded by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for data strategy support services. The protest challenged the technical evaluation of proposals and the agency’s choice not to conduct a price realism analysis. While the GAO rejected Anika’s argument on price realism, it found that USCIS’s evaluation of technical proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with procurement law, warranting a reevaluation and potential re-award.

The contract at issue sought to enhance USCIS’s data capabilities under its “Data Strategy,” which aims to ensure reliable and efficient use of data across its operations. The task order was to be awarded under the GSA OASIS 8(a) contract vehicle through a best-value tradeoff considering technical approach, corporate experience, and price. Amaze Technologies, LLC was selected for award over Anika, the incumbent, with a technical approach rated as “high confidence” compared to Anika’s “some confidence.” However, GAO found multiple aspects of this evaluation to be flawed.

One major issue was the disparate treatment of Anika’s proposal. For example, USCIS assigned Amaze credit for proposing an assessment of data quality but failed to similarly credit Anika for comparable content. In several instances, USCIS appeared to reward Amaze for superficial elements—such as the frequency of certain buzzwords—while penalizing Anika for similar or arguably superior responses. The GAO determined that this unequal treatment lacked a rational basis and was unsupported by the record.

The GAO also found fault with USCIS’s assessment of visualizations proposed by Anika. The solicitation required offerors to propose “potential visualizations” to support leadership decision-making. While Anika offered several meaningful visualizations tailored to the scenario, the agency penalized it for not being “innovative or creative,” even though such qualities were not stated evaluation criteria. GAO held this to be an imposition of unstated requirements and noted the lack of evidence that Amaze’s proposal satisfied this same standard.

Another significant error involved USCIS’s critique of Anika’s automation plan. The agency claimed Anika’s proposal was unclear about which party—contractor or government—would perform certain tasks. However, GAO found that Amaze’s proposal contained similar ambiguities, and that USCIS’s explanation for treating the proposals differently was unconvincing.

While Anika also argued that the agency improperly failed to conduct a price realism analysis, GAO disagreed. Citing established precedent, GAO reiterated that under a fixed-price contract, an agency has discretion over whether to conduct such an analysis when the solicitation merely reserves the right to do so. Here, the agency found Amaze’s price was not significantly below the competition average and therefore reasonably declined to assess price realism.

Ultimately, the GAO concluded that the record did not support several of USCIS’s negative assessments of Anika’s proposal and that these evaluation errors may have affected the outcome of the award. Accordingly, GAO recommended that USCIS reevaluate the proposals, make a new award decision, and reimburse Anika for the costs of filing and pursuing the protest.

This decision, authored by General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez, reinforces the importance of transparent, well-documented, and fair evaluation practices in federal procurements, especially when complex technical solutions and subjective judgments are involved.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only. It is not guaranteed to be accurate and does not constitute legal advice.