Stacked Justifications and Botched Oversight
According to the report, the GSA’s rationale for avoiding a competitive bid included unnecessary, over-engineered requirements—such as proprietary software and “specialized services”—which the OIG said were seemingly crafted to tailor the award for a preferred contractor. That contractor was not identified in the report.
“It appears these items were included with the sole intent to justify award of the task order to the preferred contractor without competition,” the OIG said in its findings.
Worse yet, the technical evaluation and pricing analysis were deemed flawed, key policy reviews were skipped or inadequately performed, and the limited-source justification was neither approved nor publicly posted, violating federal rules.
GSA Responds, But Accountability in Question
The GSA has accepted all four recommendations from the OIG, including:
-
Completing and publishing justification documents before awards are made.
-
Holding violators accountable for noncompliance with federal acquisition regulations.
-
Revamping quality control policies.
Bob Stafford, GSA’s chief administrative officer, said his office will create a corrective action plan once the final audit report is issued, outlining specific steps and timelines to implement the changes.
“We agree with the recommendations,” Stafford stated, “and will take appropriate actions to ensure compliance going forward.”
Meanwhile, both the OIG and GSA declined further comment Friday, leaving watchdogs and taxpayers alike waiting to see if this multimillion-dollar misstep will end in real reform—or just another bureaucratic paper trail.
