Protest Update on $155M VA Priority Goal for Support to Safeguard Against Veteran Suicide contract

Updated February 29, 2024

For those following closely, the document has been released related to the Court decision to disagree with the GAO decision challenging procurement actions related to a recently awarded contract for support services to assist VA’s efforts to reduce and prevent suicide in military and veteran populations.

“On October 13, 2023, the District Communications Group (“DCG”) and a joint venture that DCG is a co-venturer in, CruxDCG, filed directly related bid protests in this Court challenging their exclusion from competition for a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) contract to provide “support services to assist [the] VA in reducing and preventing suicide within the military and veteran populations.” ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 11. Plaintiffs allege that the VA committed prejudicial error in excluding them from competition based on an actual or potential impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (“OCI”). Id. ¶¶ 35–39. Plaintiffs, the government, and Defendant-Intervenor, have all moved for judgment on the administrative record, and Plaintiffs have requested injunctive relief. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the administrative record is granted, the cross-motions are denied, and Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief..”

See the decision here.

Updated February 27, 2024

For those following closely, it appears that the Courts disagreed with the GAO decision challenging procurement actions related to a recently awarded contract for support services to assist VA’s efforts to reduce and prevent suicide in military and veteran populations.

Included below is the text from a mid-month decision in the case THE DISTRICT COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, LLC and CRUXDCG, LLC,  Plaintiffs, vs THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant,  and CLEAR VANTAGE POINT SOLUTIONS II, LLC,  Defendant-Intervenor

“Pursuant to the court’s Opinion and Order, filed February 13, 2024, granting plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the administrative record and request for injunctive relief, and denying defendant’s and defendant-intervenor’s cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record,

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this date, pursuant to Rule 58, that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs. The United, including the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs, it’s officers, agents, and employees, are permanently restrained and enjoined from continuing to obtain performance on the contract awarded pursuant to the White House Priority Goals solicitation (Solicitation 36C10X23R0006) unless and until it determines—in a manner that is not inconsistent with the court’s opinion or the limits on agency action after its initial grounds for taking agency action have been found inadequate, that J.R. Reingold & Associates and “any and all subcontractors, to include [t]he District Communications Group (DCG),” on Reingold’s existing task order do, in fact, have an unmitigable organizational conflict of interest that prevents them from competing for the award of the White House Priority Goals solicitation.”

It is unclear what action will be taken to remedy this issue. More information will be shared as it is made available.

Posted September 25, 2023

DIGEST – Protests that agency unreasonably excluded the protesters from a competition on the basis of an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest arising from an ongoing task order for related services are denied, where the contracting officer meaningfully considered the circumstances and reasonably concluded that possible award of a contract to the protesters presented an impaired objectivity type conflict of interest that could be avoided by exclusion of the firms from the competition.

DISCUSSION    The protesters challenge their exclusion from the competition and argue that no OCI exists or, alternatively, that the RFP here includes a provision that effectively eliminates the risk of any actual impairment.  We note at the outset that our Office will review the reasonableness of a contracting officer’s OCI investigation and, where an agency has given meaningful consideration to whether a significant conflict of interest exists, we will not substitute our judgment for the agency’s, absent clear evidence that the agency’s conclusion is unreasonable.  ASM Research, B-412187, Jan. 7, 2016, 2016 CPD ¶ 38 at 4 (citing TeleCommunication Sys. Inc., B-404496.3, Oct. 26, 2011, 2011 CPD ¶ 229 at 3-4).  In reviewing the contracting officer’s determination, we recognize that the identification of conflicts of interest is a fact-specific inquiry that requires the exercise of considerable discretion…

DECISION – The District Communications Group, LLC (District), of Plantation, Florida, and CruxDCG LLC, of Roseville, California, a small business, protest their exclusion from competition for a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10X23R0006, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Strategic Acquisition Center, for commercial support services to assist the VA’s efforts to reduce and prevent suicide in military and veteran populations.  The protesters contend that the RFP improperly excludes them from the competition to avoid an impaired objectivity type of organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from other work being performed by District.  The protesters argue that no conflict exists or that any potential conflict could be easily avoided without excluding the protesters from the competition.

We deny the protests.

See the decision here.

Related Data

Contract Award: $155M VA National Safeguard Initiative Against Veteran Suicide

🔊 Listen to Story