Anika Systems, Inc. (B-422681.5; B-422681.6)

You should care.

Category: Technical evaluation, price realism

Date: 8 April 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422681.5%2Cb-422681.6

Anika Systems, Inc., protested DHS’s issuance of a task order to Amaze Technologies, LLC, under RFP No. 70SBUR24R00000009 for data strategy support services USCIS’s Office of the Chief Data Officer. Anika challenged the technical evaluation and the agency’s decision not to conduct a price realism analysis. GAO sustained the protest in part, finding that USCIS’s technical evaluation was unreasonable and unequally applied in several key areas under the most important factor, technical approach.

Anika specifically alleged that DHS applied unstated evaluation criteria, disparately evaluated similar quote features, and failed to recognize multiple strengths that should have increased confidence in its offer. GAO agreed, citing improper assessments related to training, proposed visualizations, automation approaches, and evaluation of data quality assessments. GAO also found USCIS failed to properly credit Anika’s proposal where warranted and unfairly downgraded it in others. Although GAO denied the challenges to the agency’s methodology for assigning confidence ratings and the price realism analysis decision, it found a reasonable possibility that absent the evaluation errors, Anika could have been selected for award.

• Disparate treatment: GAO found the agency treated Anika and Amaze differently for similar or indistinguishable features—for example, praising Amaze's data quality plan while ignoring nearly identical content in Anika's proposal. Deference does not protect an agency when it evaluates offers inconsistently.
• Unstated evaluation criteria: DHS downgraded Anika for not proposing "innovative" visualizations, but the solicitation never required innovation—it just asked for “potential visualizations.”
• Failure to recognize strengths: Anika proposed using an automated quality tool, which the record showed would enhance performance without needing extra government intervention. DHS ignored that.
• Thin or unsupported rationale: For some criticisms of Anika, the agency gave no real explanation or the rationale didn't match the record.

Result: Protest sustained in part. GAO recommended reevaluation of proposals and a new award decision, with possible termination of the Amaze task order if a new awardee is selected.

Digest

Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals is sustained where the record demonstrates the evaluation was unreasonable and inconsistent with procurement law and regulation. Protest that the agency unreasonably concluded that a price realism analysis was unnecessary is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency had a reasonable basis for its decision not to conduct that analysis.