GAO Sustains Protest Over NIH Task Order Evaluation
In a recent bid protest decision, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained a protest filed by TISTA Science and Technology Corporation regarding a task order awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Institutes of Health (NIH). The protest challenged NIH’s evaluation of proposals for software development services under a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule procurement. TISTA, the incumbent contractor, argued that the agency's evaluation of technical factors and best-value tradeoff were flawed.
The GAO found merit in TISTA’s arguments, specifically in the evaluation of the management subfactor. The primary issue was disparate treatment between TISTA’s and Tantus Technologies, Inc.'s proposals. While both companies proposed similar surge staffing strategies, NIH evaluated them inconsistently. NIH assigned a weakness to TISTA’s approach, asserting that its plan to maintain a bench of pre-vetted candidates presented a performance risk. In contrast, Tantus was credited with a strength for proposing a similar strategy, maintaining a "warm bench" of candidates for surge support. The GAO determined that the agency failed to justify this differential treatment.
Additionally, the GAO found that NIH unreasonably criticized TISTA’s use of the government’s onboarding system, ROSS, while not applying the same scrutiny to Tantus’s proposed onboarding improvements. Moreover, NIH awarded Tantus a strength for its use of a master schedule for project tracking, while TISTA received no similar credit for its proposed "master tracker," despite both being used for surge staffing planning.
NIH’s flawed evaluation had a direct impact on the best-value tradeoff decision. The source selection authority emphasized Tantus’s superior technical and past performance ratings, citing its surge staffing capability as a key differentiator. However, given that this evaluation was based on unfairly applied evaluation criteria, GAO found that the best-value determination was unreasonable.
As a result of these findings, GAO recommended that NIH reevaluate the proposals in accordance with the solicitation’s criteria and issue a new source selection decision. If this re-evaluation results in a different awardee, NIH should terminate the current task order with Tantus. Additionally, GAO recommended that TISTA be reimbursed for the costs of filing and pursuing the protest.
This decision underscores the importance of fairness in federal procurement evaluations. Agencies must ensure that their assessments are applied consistently and transparently. When inconsistencies arise, as seen in this case, they can lead to successful bid protests and require agencies to rework their evaluations, delaying contract performance and increasing costs. Contractors should carefully review agency feedback and challenge evaluations that appear to be applied unevenly.
This summary is based on the GAO decision involving the protest filed by TISTA Science and Technology Corporation.
Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The accuracy of this summary is not guaranteed, and readers should consult official sources for precise details.
