Agency Acknowledged a PIA Violation. Why Didn’t the Agency Cancel the Solicitation?

Agency staff disclosed procurement information to the Washington Post. The agency acknowledged the disclosures violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). The protester said the agency should’ve canceled the solicitation. But GAO found cancellation wasn’t warranted because the protester had not been prejudiced. 

Loyal Source Government Services, LLC, GAO B-420959.14 

• PIA Violation – The solicitation sought medical screening services for people in Custom and Border Patrol’s (CBP) custody. The protester, who was the incumbent, submitted a bid. While the agency was evaluating, the Washington Post published an article about a death that occurred under the incumbent contract. The article indicated the protester was finalist for the new contract, that an advisory board had not recommended the protester for the next round of consideration, and that the agency had overruled the advisory board’s decision. 
• PIA Investigation – CBP determined the information in the article amounted to PIA violation. The agency halted the procurement. The procurement was moved from CBP and transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, which assigned a new contracting officer. 
• Adequacy of Investigation – The protester complained about the sufficiency of the investigation, arguing the agency did not consider all the information related to the PIA violation. GAO rejected the argument. The agency took steps to mitigate the PIA violation and was continuing to take steps. The protester had not explained which of its concerns were not being addressed. 
• Cancelation of Solicitation – The protester contended the agency’s attempts to mitigate were not enough. The protester said the agency should have canceled the solicitation. But GAO reasoned a PIA violation only required cancellation when an offeror has been prejudiced. Here, the protester had not shown how the disclosed procurement information would be useful to other competitors. 

The protester is represented by Samuel B. Knowles, Thomas E. Daley, Christine Alvarez, and David R. Lacker of DLA Piper LLP (US). The agency is represented by Roger A. Hipp and Pavan Mehrotra of the Department of Homeland Security. GAO attorneys Kyle E. Gilbertson and Peter H. Tran participated in the decision. 

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Editor in Chief