Unissant, Inc. (C57839)

B-418193.2 Jan 31, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Unissant, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), in response to an earlier protest from another offeror challenging the issuance of a task order to Unissant under request for proposals (RFP) No. C57839 for information security services. The protester contends that the agency's corrective action--which included terminating Unissant's task order and reviewing its requirement and acquisition process--is unreasonable. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has now been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Unissant, Inc. File:  B-418193.2 Date:  January 31, 2020 Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq., Randolph Law, PLLC, and Lanny J. Davis, Esq., David Goldberg & Galper PLLC, for the protester. Pamela R. Waldron, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s corrective action, which included terminating a task order and reviewing its requirement and acquisition process, is denied where the agency’s corrective action was reasonable in light of its failure to adequately document its earlier evaluation and award decision. DECISION Unissant, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the corrective action taken by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), in response to an earlier protest from another offeror challenging the issuance of a task order to Unissant under request for proposals (RFP) No. C57839 for information security services.  The protester contends that the agency’s corrective action--which included terminating Unissant’s task order and reviewing its requirement and acquisition process--is unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2019, the agency issued the RFP, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 16, to holders of NIH information technology acquisition and assessment center Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 governmentwide multiple-award, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP sought a contractor to provide information security support services for the agency’s chief information officer.  Id. After the agency received initial proposals, engaged in exchanges with offerors, and requested several rounds of revised proposals, the agency selected Unissant for award.  COS at 1.  On September 30, the agency issued a task order to Unissant for a base year and four 1‑year option periods with an anticipated total award value of $131,818,899.  Id.; see also Protest, exh. 2, Award Document, Sept. 30, 2019.[1] Another offeror filed a protest with our Office, challenging various aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and award decision.  Prior to the due date for filing its report, the agency informed our Office that it would take corrective action consisting of the following: (1)The Agency will terminate the task order; [and] (2) The Agency will review the requirement and the acquisition process with the intention of breaking up the requirement into two separate procurements, as opposed to continuing with the single solicitation at issue. Protest, exh. 1, Notice of Corrective Action, Oct. 29, 2019, at 1.  We then dismissed the protest as academic.  Customer Value Partners, Inc., B-418193, Oct. 30, 2019, at 1 (unpublished decision).  On November 7, this protest followed.[2] DISCUSSION Unissant raises various complaints about the agency’s corrective action.  Unissant primarily argues that the agency’s corrective action is unreasonable because “there [was] no flaw in the original evaluation and award.”  Protest at 11; see also Comments, Dec. 19, 2019, at 1.  In response, the agency asserts that its corrective action was reasonable and within its discretion because its earlier procurement actions were flawed--that is, the agency lacked documentation to support its evaluation and award decision.  Memorandum of Law (MOL), Dec. 9, 2019, at 5, 7. We have considered all of the parties’ arguments, including those that are in addition to or variations of those specifically discussed below, and find no basis to sustain Unissant’s protest. Agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action where the agency determines that such action is necessary to ensure a fair and impartial competition.  See American Warehouse Sys., LLC, B-412543, Mar. 1, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 66 at 3; Domain Name Alliance Registry, B-310803.2, Aug.