Your Protest May Have Prompted Corrective Action, But that Doesn’t Mean the Reevaluation Will Be Favorable

GAO sustained a protest, and the agency took corrective action to reevaluate. The protester filed a second protest, arguing the corrective action didn’t remedy the issues identified in the previous protest. GAO rejected the argument, finding the reevaluation was reasonable.

Sparksoft Corporation, GAO – 4210944.4

• Previous Protest and Corrective Action – GAO sustained a protest challenging award of a task order. The agency said it would take corrective action to reevaluate. Following the reevaluation, the agency again selected the awardee. The protester filed a second protest. The protester argued the agency’s corrective action failed to remedy the issues identified in the previous protest.
• Removal of Assumption– GAO previously found the agency had assigned a strength to the awardee’s based on an unwarranted assumption. As part of that corrective action, the agency removed the assumption and the strength from the evaluation. The protester argued that with the removal of the unwarranted assumption, the awardee’s oral presentation should’ve been assessed a weakness. GAO disagreed. The assumption had not been the entire basis of the strength. Removal of the assumption may have negated the strength, but it didn’t justify a weakness.
• Discounted Weaknesses – In the previous protest, GAO sustained, in part, because the agency had minimized weaknesses assessed to the awardee. Specifically, the agency had not explained why it thought the awardee could easily overcome those weaknesses. The protester contended the agency still discounted those weaknesses in the reevaluation. But GAO found the protester’s argument was mere disagreement. The agency had reasonably found the risks posed by the weaknesses were mitigated by other strengths and the awardee’s experience.

The protester is represented by David B. Dixon, Toghrul Shukurlu, and Robert Starling of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The intervenor is represented by John R. Prairie, J. Ryan Frazee, and Lisa M. Rechden of Wiley Rein LLP. The agency is represented by Ethan S. Chae, William Shim, David Lank, and Douglas Kornreich of the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Jonathan L. Kang and John Sorrenti participated in the decision.

–Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor