Government auditors have vetoed a Justice Department identification security contract for the second time, siding again with a losing bidder who has lodged repeated complaints the deal is a bad value for taxpayers.
For almost a year, the Office of Justice Programs, which manages $10 billion in funding for state and local law enforcement initiatives, has been fighting a legal battle to continue with a federally mandated smart card ID project. The protestor, NikSoft Systems Corp., first challenged the October 2011 contract awarded to LS3 Technologies in November of that year. The Government Accountability Office agreed with NikSoft’s contention that OJP overlooked the company’s strengths and told the agency to reevaluate both vendors’ proposals for securing computers with ID cards.
When OJP stood by its initial award, NikSoft lodged a second protest in May.
In an Aug. 14 ruling, GAO attorneys essentially reiterated that OJP unfairly skewed the ratings of NikSoft’s offering.
“The record provides no basis for the agency’s determination that the protester’s level of effort was insufficient or that the protester’s level of effort should be increased to the same level of effort proposed by the successful vendor,” GAO General Counsel Lynn H. Gibson wrote.
And, once more, GAO told Justice to reconsider its decision.
The attorneys recommended that “DOJ evaluate the vendors’ level of effort and labor mix and make a new best value selection decision. If LS3’s quotation is not found to reflect the best value, the agency should cancel LS3’s [contract] and establish a [contract] with NikSoft.”
Agencies typically follow GAO legal decisions.
(Image via JNT Visual /Shutterstock.com)

Continuous Monitoring As a Service: A Shift in the Way Government Does Business
Research Report: Powering Continuous Monitoring Through Big Data
Addressing the 3 Biggest BYOD Security Threats
Mobile Apps: New Ways to Connect Government with Citizens
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Nextgov does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.