InGenesis, Inc.

B-412101.2 Mar 28, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights InGenesis, Inc., of San Antonio, Texas, protests the exercise of an option to extend services under contract No. HSCEDM-15-C-00004 awarded to Maxim Health Care Services, Inc. (Maxim), of Columbia, Maryland, by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for medical services at the South Texas Family Residential Facility (STFRF), a detainment facility for undocumented immigrant women and children in Dilley, Texas. InGenesis contends that the agency failed to follow applicable regulations in exercising the option. 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:  InGenesis, Inc. File:  B-412101.2 Date:  March 28, 2016 Edward J. Tolchin, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester. Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Patrick R. Quigley, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the intervenor. Douglas J. Becker, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly exercised an option under another vendor’s existing contract is denied where the agency reasonably determined that exercising the option was the most advantageous means of satisfying the agency’s needs. DECISION InGenesis, Inc., of San Antonio, Texas, protests the exercise of an option to extend services under contract No. HSCEDM-15-C-00004 awarded to Maxim Health Care Services, Inc. (Maxim), of Columbia, Maryland, by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for medical services at the South Texas Family Residential Facility (STFRF), a detainment facility for undocumented immigrant women and children in Dilley, Texas.  InGenesis contends that the agency failed to follow applicable regulations in exercising the option. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2012, ICE awarded contract No. VHSCECR-12-F-00048 (Contract 048) to InGenesis for medical staffing and support services for undocumented immigrants at various locations in the United States for a 320-day base period and four 12-month option periods.  AR, Tab 7, InGenesis Contract 048, at 1, 6. On September 4, 2015, ICE posted on FedBizOpps (FBO) a justification and approval (J&A) for other than full and open competition for the award of a short‑term, sole-source contract to Maxim for performance of comprehensive healthcare services at the STFRF.[1]  The J&A states that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent ICE a list of 32 vendors that could potentially perform the required medical services.  AR, Tab 3, J&A, at 2.  After discussing its requirements with the vendors, ICE determined that only Maxim had the capability to perform the services.  AR, Tab 3, J&A, at 3.  The J&A states that the justification is authorized under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.  Id. at 1.  InGenesis was not included as a vendor in the list from HHS.  Protest at 5. On September 22, ICE awarded a fixed-price, sole-source contract to Maxim for a base period of 3-months, with three 3-month option periods.  The option periods were evaluated in awarding the contract.[2] On October 30, InGenesis sent the agency an unsolicited proposal for completing work proposed for the STFRF.  The agency subsequently notified the protester that its document did not meet the definition of a valid unsolicited proposal under FAR subpart 15.6 and would not be evaluated.[3]  AR, Tab 6, Rejection of InGenesis’s Unsolicited Proposal, at 1.  Specifically, the agency explained that pursuant to FAR § 15.603(c), the document did not meet the requirements for agency evaluation since it offered services that were currently being provided by another vendor and would be reacquired through competitive methods.[4] On December 16, the Contracting Officer (CO) issued a determination and findings (D&F) outlining its decision to exercise the first 3-month option period under Maxim’s contract and modified the contract.[5]  AR, Tab 4, D&F, at 1.  The D&F states that in accordance with FAR § 17.207, Exercise of Options, the agency determined, among other things, that “[t]he exercise of Option I is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the [g]overnment’s need, price and other factors considered.”  Id.  The D&F includes a section entitled “PRICING,” under which the agency checked a box indicating that “[t]he time between award of the contract and [o]ption exercise is so short that the [o]ption price is the lowest obtainable or the most advantageous offer, tak...