Arch Systems, LLC

B-417110.5,B-417110.6 May 23, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Arch Systems, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Sparksoft Corporation, of Catonsville, Maryland, also a small business, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 180323, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to obtain operation, maintenance, and development of the multidimensional information data analytics system (MIDAS) for CMS's Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO). The protester contends that CMS misevaluated both its and Sparksoft's proposals, evaluated proposals unequally, and made a source selection decision that was inconsistent with the criteria in the TORP. 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: Arch Systems, LLC File: B-417110.5; B-417110.6 Date: May 23, 2019 Andrew J. Mohr, Esq., C. Kelly Kroll, Esq., and Daniel I. Prywes, Esq., Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, for the protester. David B. Dixon, Esq., Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., and Robert C. Starling, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Sparksoft Corporation, the intervenor. Seeta Rebbapragada, Esq., and Pamela Waldron, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated task order proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria, and where the agency's source selection decision reasonably determined that protester's and successful vendor's task order proposals were essentially technically equal, and the selection of the successful vendor based on its lower evaluated price/cost was consistent with the solicitation. DECISION Arch Systems, LLC, of Baltimore, Maryland, a small business, protests the issuance of a task order to Sparksoft Corporation, of Catonsville, Maryland, also a small business, under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 180323, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), to obtain operation, maintenance, and development of the multidimensional information data analytics system (MIDAS) for CMS's Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO). The protester contends that CMS misevaluated both its and Sparksoft's proposals, evaluated proposals unequally, and made a source selection decision that was inconsistent with the criteria in the TORP. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The TORP was issued on April 13, 2018, to 47 women-owned small businesses that hold CMS's strategic partners acquisition readiness (SPARC) contracts. The TORP sought proposals to provide services related to MIDAS, a cloud-based data platform for capturing, sharing, aggregating, and analyzing health insurance and related information, sometimes referred to as "[m]arketplace data," to assist CCIIO in implementing the Affordable Care Act. Supp. Agency Report (AR) Legal Memo at 5; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The TORP anticipated the issuance of a task order for a 1-year base period and three 1-year options consistent with the competition requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation § 16.505. COS at 2; TORP at 15. The TORP provided that a hybrid fixed-price/cost-plus-award-fee task order would be issued to the vendor whose proposal provided the best value under four technical factors, in descending order of significance: technical understanding and approach, personnel qualifications and management plan, past performance, and section 5081 compliance--product accessibility template. Id. at 3. The technical factors were to be assessed using adjectival ratings of excellent, highly acceptable, acceptable, or unacceptable. Id. When combined, these factors were to be significantly more important than evaluated cost/price. Id. The evaluation of price/cost was to combine a vendor's fixed-prices for operation and maintenance elements of the statement of work (SOW)2 with the estimated costs for the software development elements. Those cost-reimbursement elements were also to be evaluated to assess whether the costs were realistic. TORP at 17-18. CMS received proposals from 15 SPARC contractors and, after an initial evaluation, eliminated vendors whose proposals were rated unacceptable in any of the technical factors. COS at 2-3.