ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC

B-417655,B-417655.2,B-417655.3 Sep 18, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Unissant, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT001519R0008, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Health Agency (DHA), for integration support services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's quotation. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC File:  B-417655; B-417655.2; B-417655.3 Date:  September 18, 2019 Merle M. DeLancey, Esq., Justin A. Chiarodo, Esq., Stephanie M. Harden, Esq., and Carolyn Cody-Jones, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, for the protester. Christopher R. Shiplett, Esq., Randolph Law, PLLC, for Unissant, Inc., the intervenor. Kevin E. Bolin, Esq., and Morgan Hilgendorf, Esq., Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., Peter H. Tran, Esq., and Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s quotation under technical capability factor is dismissed where the protester’s arguments fail to state a valid basis for protest or are untimely challenges to the solicitation’s terms. 2.  Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s past performance is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria. DECISION ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLC (ASRC), of Beltsville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Unissant, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT001519R0008, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Defense Health Agency (DHA), for integration support services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation.  We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on February 13, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, as a small business set-aside to vendors holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule contracts under schedule 70, special item numbers 132-56, health information technology (IT) services, and 132‑51, IT professional services.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Conformed RFQ at 3, 41; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; Supp. COS at 1.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a single fixed-price task order for integration and sustainment of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application-Composite Health Care System (AHLTA-CHCS).[2]  RFQ at 41; COS at 2; AR, Tab 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1.  Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors in descending order of importance:  technical capability, past performance, and price.  RFQ at 40.  The RFQ stated that the technical capability factor was significantly more important than the past performance factor; the two non-price factors combined were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 41.  The agency received five timely quotations, including those from ASRC and Unissant, which were evaluated as follows:   ASRC Unissant Technical Capability Outstanding Outstanding Past Performance Substantial Confidence Substantial Confidence Total Evaluated Price $23,810,324 $20,189,459 AR, Tab 9, Award Decision Document, at 5. The contracting officer, who served as the source selection authority (SSA), reviewed and concurred with the evaluation board’s assessment, performed a comparative assessment of the relative merits of Unissant and ASRC’s quotations under each evaluation factor, and identified discriminators between the quotations.  Under technical capability, the most important factor, the SSA identified strengths unique to each vendor’s quotation, assessed their benefits, and concluded that Unissant’s quotation was more advantageous when compared to ASRC’s because the strengths identified for ASRC provided short-term advantages when compared to the strengths identified in Unissant’s quotation.  Id. at 6.  The SSA also noted that ASRC was assessed a weakness under this factor while Unissant’s quotation was not.  Id.  As a result, the SSA concluded that Unissant’s quotation was superior to that of ASRC’s.  Id.  Similarly, the SSA found that under the past performance factor, ASRC’s past performance was superior as it was more relevant than that of Unissant.  Id.