Tantus Technologies, Inc.

B-411608.2 Sep 14, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Health Innovation and Technology Venture (HIT), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Edaptive Systems LLC, of Owings Mills, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHSM-500-2015-XXXXX, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The RFP sought comprehensive testing strategy and testing support services for information technology (IT) systems. The protester argues that the agency erred in finding that the awardee did not have an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and in evaluating the awardee's proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Health Innovation and Technology Venture File: B-411608.2 Date: September 14, 2015 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. Jeffery M. Chiow, Esq., Neil H. O’Donnell, Esq., and Lucas T. Hanback, Esq., Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, for the intervenor, Edaptive Systems LLC. Douglas Kornreich, Esq., and Tony Ross, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Brent Burris, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency did not meaningfully consider whether task orders held by awardee’s subcontractor created an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest is denied where the protester failed to present hard facts indicating the existence of a conflict. 2. Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where agency’s cost evaluation errors did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. DECISION Health Innovation and Technology Venture (HIT), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Edaptive Systems LLC, of Owings Mills, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHSM-500-2015-XXXXX, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The RFP sought comprehensive testing strategy and testing support services for information technology (IT) systems. The protester argues that the agency erred in finding that the awardee did not have an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) and in evaluating the awardee’s proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND CMS issued the RFP on January 9, 2015, under the National Institutes of Health Information Technology Acquisition and Assessment Center (NITAAC),[1] Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) GWAC for IT solutions and services.[2] Contracting Officer’s (CO’s) Statement at 2. The RFP, which was restricted to small businesses, contemplated the issuance of a cost-plus-award-fee task order with a 1-year base period and four 1-year options. Id.; RFP at 1-2. The RFP sought contractor assistance with the testing of various IT systems that are used by HHS to operate a health insurance marketplace pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. CO’s Statement at 1. The RFP provided that award would be made in accordance with section 16.505 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), using a best-value trade off between cost and four non-cost evaluation factors, with a fifth evaluation factor--Section 508 compliance--rated on a pass/fail basis.[3] AR, Tab 2.D.3, Evaluation Factors, at 1. The non-cost evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff were, in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach and understanding; (2) personnel and management; (3) project organization and management plan; and (4) corporate experience and past performance.[4] Id. The RFP further provided that the non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, were more important than cost, but that cost would become more important as proposals became more equal in merit under the non-cost factors. Id. at 5. With respect to the evaluation of cost, the RFP provided that CMS would conduct a cost realism analysis of offerors’ business proposals in accordance with FAR § 15.404-1(d). Id. at 5. As relevant here, the RFP provided that the anticipated task order could involve significant potential OCIs, including impaired objectivity OCIs resulting from an offeror’s other contracts with the government. RFP at 47. In this regard, the solicitation provided that the CO believed an impaired objectivity OCI would exist if the awardee or one of its subcontractors also held a contract for the “infrastructure, design, development, or operation and maintenance” of one of the IT systems that comprised the health insurance marketplace. Id.