In TISTA Science and Technology Corporation, B-422891.2, et al. (Jan. 23, 2025), TISTA protested a National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarding of a task order for software development services to Tantus Technologies, alleging improper evaluation of both offerors’ technical proposals. The core issue was GAO’s finding that NIH treated TISTA and Tantus unequally, particularly with respect to their surge staffing approaches, despite nearly identical solutions.
The Decision
GAO sustained the protest, ruling that:
- Disparate Treatment on Surge Staffing: GAO found that NIH assessed a weakness to TISTA’s use of a bench of “pre-vetted candidates,” but credited Tantus with a strength for using a “warm bench”—even though both offerors proposed substantively the same approach.
- Unreasonable Evaluation of Supporting Tools: NIH also assigned a weakness to TISTA for referencing the agency’s existing onboarding system (ROSS), asserting TISTA implied it uniquely owned the tool. However, NIH did not assign the same criticism to Tantus, which also proposed modifying NIH’s onboarding process.
- GAO Upholds the Majority of Technical Ratings: GAO denied TISTA’s broader challenges to the technical evaluation, including criticisms of how NIH assessed technical capabilities and AI references.
- Competitive Prejudice Established: Because the source selection decision heavily relied on the perceived staffing advantage of Tantus, and that advantage was based on an uneven evaluation, GAO found that TISTA was prejudiced and sustained the protest.
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Watch for Disparate Treatment: If two offerors propose nearly identical solutions, but are evaluated differently, it may be grounds for a successful protest. Agencies must apply evaluation criteria consistently.
- Words Matter in Technical Narratives: GAO upheld several weaknesses against TISTA because the company’s proposal did not clearly explain its approach. Even incumbents cannot rely on the agency to “know what they meant”—every assertion must be documented in the proposal itself.
- Innovation Claims Must Be Precise: Touting proprietary tools or systems in a proposal? Be careful. Agencies may misunderstand or assume you’re overstating capabilities, especially if the tool is widely used internally.
- Small Differences Can Shift Outcomes: In best-value tradeoffs, subtle distinctions in technical or management approaches—even in staffing—can tip the scales. Agencies and contractors alike should ensure that proposals are evaluated fairly and supported by the record.