B-310210, Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc., November 8, 2007

B-310210 Nov 08, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc. (SeBS) protests the rejection of the proposal that it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. CMS-2007-8A-0006, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, for the development of materials to be used to train customer service representatives in responding to Medicare beneficiary inquiries. The protester takes issue with the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-310210, Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc., November 8, 2007 Decision Matter of: Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc. File: B-310210 Date: November 8, 2007 Howard Folkes for the protester. Jeffri Pierre, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably concluded that protester had failed to demonstrate that it had a subcontracting agreement in place for a required area of expertise where purported subcontracting agreement did not describe the type of services to be furnished by the subcontractor or the price terms and there was no evidence that subcontractor's offer of services had been accepted by the protester. 2. Where agency conducted discussions that reasonably led protester into the area of its proposal requiring amplification, agency was not required to conduct additional discussions once it determined that proposal, as revised, remained informationally deficient. DECISION Strategic e-Business Solutions, Inc. (SeBS) protests the rejection of the proposal that it submitted in response to request for proposals (RFP) No. CMS-2007-8A-0006, issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, for the development of materials to be used to train customer service representatives in responding to Medicare beneficiary inquiries. The protester takes issue with the evaluation of its proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for an initial screening of proposals on a pass/fail basis to determine their compliance with a solicitation requirement pertaining to experience.[1] The proposals that passed the factor were then to be evaluated on the basis of multiple additional factors (technical understanding, management plan, optional tasks, personnel qualifications, corporate experience, past performance, and cost/price), while the proposals that failed the factor were to be excluded from further consideration. The experience factor provided as follows: The prime contractor and/or its subcontractors proposing under this contract shall demonstrate that it has provided integrated training, content, and quality monitoring services in a multi-channel contact center servicing Medicare beneficiaries. The contractor shall have experience with the current CMS Next Generation Desktop (NGD) functionality and an understanding of the build process in order to provide actionable recommendations as they relate to the NGD or any of its integrated components. Note: This requirement may be met with a combination of experience from the prime and subcontractor(s) and/or the prime may use experience across multiple legal entities that are owned under a single corporate umbrella. . . . Subcontracting agreements and the establishment of new legal entities must be final at the time of proposal submission. RFP at 76. Offerors were instructed to demonstrate their compliance with the foregoing requirements by (1) providing a narrative summary explaining their compliance, (2) furnishing copies of –formal subcontracting teaming agreements— and documentation substantiating any new legal entities, and (3) citing specific examples demonstrating their compliance with the above requirements. Id. at 66-67. SeBS submitted its proposal by the August 2, 2007 closing date. In its proposal, the protester represented that –SeBS consultants— (whom it did not further identify) had NGD experience. After reviewing SeBS's proposal, the contracting officer advised the protester that it had not furnished sufficient information to achieve a rating of pass under the experience requirement and that it needed to clarify how its team satisfied the requirement. Of particular relevance to this protest, the contracting officer asked SeBS to clarify its team's experience with NGD functionality and to identify the consultants that it would be using to meet the requirement for NGD experience. He also asked SeBS to clarify whether the consultants were being proposed as part of the SeBS team. SeBS responded to the agency's request for additional information by noting that it had –negotiated consulting support from— a company with NGD experience.[2] Protester's Aug. 16, 2007 Response to the Agency at 7.