CivitasDX, LLC (T4NG-0748)

B-423968,B-423968.2 Feb 05, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CivitasDX, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Sprezzatura-GovernmentCIO Joint Venture, LLC (SCIO), an SDVOSB of Arlington, Virginia, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) T4NG-0748, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for information technology (IT) services and staff to support the VA in various mission areas. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated execution plans, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: CivitasDX, LLC File: B-423968; B-423968.2 Date: February 5, 2026 Anuj Vohra, Esq., Cherie J. Owen, Esq., William B. O'Reilly, Esq., Edward V. North, Esq., and Emily P. Golchini, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. James Y. Boland, Esq., Lindsay M. Reed, Esq., Emily R. Marcy, Esq., and Patrick J. Brogan, Esq., Venable LLP, for Sprezzatura-GovernmentCIO Joint Venture LLC, the intervenor. Nicholas Pantages, Esq., Lolitha McKinney, Esq., and Mellany Alio, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of execution plans is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION CivitasDX, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of San Diego, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Sprezzatura-GovernmentCIO Joint Venture, LLC (SCIO), an SDVOSB of Arlington, Virginia, under request for task execution plan (RTEP) T4NG-0748, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), for information technology (IT) services and staff to support the VA in various mission areas. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated execution plans, resulting in a flawed source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 12, 2024, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, the VA issued the solicitation to holders of its transformation twenty-one total technology next generation (T4NG) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1. The RTEP was set-aside for SDVOSB holders of the T4NG IDIQ contract and anticipated the issuance of a hybrid fixed‑price and cost-reimbursable task order for a base period of up to eight months with four 12-month option periods. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RTEP at 56. The solicitation sought an offeror to provide staff to design, build, operate, and maintain IT systems for the purpose of streamlining systems, as well as improving scalability, increasing availability of services, ensuring security within VA standards, implementing new technologies, and enabling more efficient delivery of services. Id. at 55. The due date for execution plans, as amended, was June 30, 2025.[1] AR, Tab 4D, RTEP amend. 0004 at 1. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors: technical approach, past performance, and price.  RTEP at 3. The technical approach factor was significantly more important than the price factor, which was slightly more important than the past performance factor. Id. The non-price factors combined were significantly more important than the price. Id. For the technical approach factor, the solicitation required offerors to describe their approach in the following five areas: (1) financial management systems; (2) IT products; (3) day one products, including the Veterans Canteen Service Automated Information System (VCS AIS), Human Resources Payroll Application Services (HR-PAS), and the General Counsel Legal Automated Workload System (GCLAWS); (4) estimated level of effort; and (5) management methodology. Id. at 2‑3. The agency would evaluate an offeror's technical approach factor based on the following subfactors: understanding the problem and feasibility of approach. Id. at 4. For the understanding the problem subfactor, the agency would evaluate, among the things, the extent to which the approach described by the offeror demonstrated a clear understanding of all features involved in solving problems, and the ability to meet or exceed the requirements. Id. For the feasibility of approach subfactor, the agency would evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. Id.