KoHealth Technologies, LLC (B-423440)

You should not care.

Category: Limited sources justification, market research, timeliness

Date: 10 July 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423440

KoHealth Technologies, LLC, protested the NIH National Library of Medicine’s decision to issue a sole-source, logical follow-on task order extension to ICF Incorporated, LLC, for IT modernization services related to ClinicalTrials.gov. KoHealth argued the agency lacked adequate justification for this noncompetitive award, specifically highlighting insufficient acquisition planning, inadequate market research, and alleged performance issues by the incumbent:

• The original task order for ClinicalTrials.gov modernization was competitively awarded to ICF in 2020 under a GSA FSS contract, with performance through September 2023.
• A sole-source follow-on task order was issued in 2023 (twelve months, plus a six-month option), extending to March 2025.
• During this period, NIH initiated market research for a future recompete, receiving capability statements from forty-nine firms.
• The agency determined that a transition to a new vendor posed significant delay and costs, especially because modernization was entering its final phase. NIH opted for a limited-sources justification under FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C).
• KoHealth filed an agency-level protest (March 2025, denied), then GAO protest.

Key issues and GAO’s findings:

• Propriety of limited sources justification: GAO found the agency reasonably concluded that a follow-on task order was necessary for economy and efficiency, given documented risks of disruption, duplication, and delay if a new vendor was brought in during the project’s final—and most sensitive—delivery phase.
• Market research and fairness: GAO held that the agency sufficiently documented its market research and was not required to exhaust all competition or fully analyze every capability statement under the cited FAR provision.
• Timeliness/untimely protest basis: GAO dismissed newly raised arguments that the follow-on order failed to meet FAR requirements, as these arguments were not timely presented.

Protest denied. GAO found the agency’s actions reasonable and consistent with FAR 8.405-6; there was no requirement for further competitive steps or more detailed market assessments.

Digest

Agency's establishment of a noncompetitive logical follow-on task order was reasonable pursuant to the authority of Federal Acquisition Regulation subsection 8.405‑6(a)(1)(i)(C).