GAO Case Study: CIS vs. NIH Contract Award Protest
This case study examines GAO decision B-293049 and B-293049.2 (January 23, 2004), in which Computer Information Specialists (CIS) protested the award of a telecommunications support services contract issued by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. CIS alleged that the contract was awarded to the Open Technology Group based on a flawed evaluation process. The GAO's Comptroller General sustained CIS's protest, finding that the scoring committee relied almost entirely on one evaluator's subjective and unsupported commentary, leaving the proposal improperly assessed. The study outlines the facts, issues, holdings, supporting rationale, and lessons learned regarding proper procurement evaluation procedures.
- Overview of the Case: Introduces the parties and GAO decision context
- Facts of the Case: CIS protests NIH contract award to OTG
- Issues Involved in the Case: Evaluator scoring deficiencies and procedural failures
- Decisions and Holdings: GAO sustains CIS protest
- Decision Support and GAO Recommendations: Rationale and recommended corrective actions
- Lessons Learned: Procurement procedure and taxpayer cost implications
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper follows a clear, structured format — facts, issues, holdings, support, and lessons — that mirrors the logical progression of a legal or administrative case analysis.
- It stays grounded in the specific details of the GAO decision, including case file numbers, agency names, and the specific breakdown of evaluator contributions, lending credibility and precision.
- The "Lessons Learned" section effectively connects procedural findings to broader policy implications, including the cost burden on taxpayers, demonstrating analytical awareness beyond the case itself.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the case study method applied to a government procurement dispute. It systematically extracts the relevant facts, identifies the legal and procedural issues, summarizes the ruling, and synthesizes actionable lessons. This approach is characteristic of public administration and government contracting coursework, where real decisions are used to illustrate compliance, evaluation standards, and accountability principles.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief overview identifying the parties and legal context. It then moves through a structured case analysis: facts establish the procurement background; issues detail the evaluation failures uncovered; holdings state the GAO's ruling; decision support explains the rationale; and lessons learned generalize the findings into practical guidance for procurement professionals. A single primary source — the GAO decision itself — anchors the analysis throughout.
Overview of the Case
GAO case files B-293049 and B-293049.2, dated January 23, 2004, constitute a decision involving the United States Government Accountability Office and Computer Information Specialists, Inc. (hereafter referred to as CIS). The document has been subjected to a GAO Protective Order, and therefore only a sanitized version has been approved for public release.
Facts of the Case
The case involves a protest by Computer Information Specialists, which submitted a bid on contract RFP NLM-03-101/.SAN. This Request for Proposal was issued by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to acquire telecommunications support services at their Bethesda, Maryland campus. CIS alleged that the government awarded the contract to the Open Technology Group (OTG) based on a flawed evaluation and made an unreasonable source selection decision. CIS maintained that their proposal was the more appropriate one and that much of it had been ignored by the government evaluators.
Reference
Government Accounting Office. (January 23, 2004). Decision in the Matter of Computer Information Specialists, Inc. B-293049; B-293049.2. Washington, DC: United States Government Accounting Office.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.