Corrective Action Can Be Meaningful Even When Award Decision Stands; GAO B-417565.3, DirectViz Solutions, LLC

Protest alleging the agency failed to implement meaningful corrective action in response to an earlier protest or address the issues raised in that protest is denied, where the record showed a more thorough evaluation of the differences in the offerors’ proposals and where the agency investigated a potential organizational conflict of interest that it had not previously considered. GAO also denied challenges to the agency’s technical evaluation, finding the agency considered all areas of the protester’s proposal but simply did not find certain aspects to be as advantageous as the protester believed.

DirectViz Solutions LLC protested the Defense Information Systems Agency’s award of a contract for business and technical support services to AMAR Health IT LLC, arguing that DISA failed to take meaningful corrective action in response to its previous protest, unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and made a flawed source selection decision.

The agency initially awarded the contract to AHIT. After DirectViz filed its first protest, the agency reevaluated proposals and affirmed its earlier decision. DirectViz protested again, first arguing that the agency’s corrective action was not meaningful because there was no evidence the agency actually reevaluated proposals or address the issues raised in the earlier protest. However, GAO disagreed. While the agency reached the same award decision, GAO found the second evaluation better documented DISA’s comparison between AHIT’s and the next highest rated offeror’s proposals under the cybersecurity and management approach subfactors. The agency also investigated a potential organizational conflict of interest. Finally, GAO noted that the fact that the agency affirmed its original decision was not, in itself, evidence the agency failed to take meaningful corrective action.

Next, DVS argued that its proposal warranted multiple strengths the agency ignored. However, GAO found this complaint amounted to disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without demonstrating any actual error. Generally, GAO found the agency did consider the aspects of DVS’s proposal cited in the protest, but merely found them less advantageous than the protester believed.

DirectViz Solutions LLC is represented by Gunjan R. Talati, Lawrence M. Prosen, and Benjamin L. Williams of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP. AMAR Health IT LLC is represented by John E. Jensen, Meghan D. Doherty, and Robert C. Starling of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. The government is represented by Colleen A. Eagan, Anthony J. Balestreri, and Nati Silva, Defense Information Systems Agency. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GAO-DirectViz-Solutions.pdf” title=”GAO – DirectViz Solutions”]