RELI Group, Inc.

B-418005 Dec 23, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights RELI Group, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Catonsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Fed Pro Services, LLC, of Canton, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0037, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for services to support the End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP). RELI contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the realism of the awardee's proposed price, and made a flawed best-value decision. 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:  RELI Group, Inc. File:  B-418005 Date:  December 23, 2019 Edward T. DeLisle, Esq., and Andres M. Vera, Esq., Offit Kurman, for the protester. Linda A. Santiago, Esq., and Douglas W. Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Evan C. Williams, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency conducted improper price realism analysis of awardee’s proposal is denied where the protester provides no basis to conclude that the price realism analysis was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency looked beyond the adjectival ratings to conclude that the protester’s proposal was essentially equal to the awardee’s proposal under the non-price evaluation factors, and therefore reasonably made award to the lower-priced offeror. DECISION RELI Group, Inc., an 8(a) small business of Catonsville, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to Fed Pro Services, LLC, of Canton, Mississippi, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0037, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for services to support the End‑Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program (ESRD QIP).[1]  RELI contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated the realism of the awardee’s proposed price, and made a flawed best-value decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 25, 2019, the agency issued the RFP as a set-aside for companies participating in the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15.  Agency Report (AR), RFP Cover Letter, at 1.  The RFP sought proposals to provide services to support the ESRD QIP’s requirement to validate data elements that are used to measure the performance of providers of renal dialysis services.[2]  RFP, SOW, at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods.  RFP at 2.  The solicitation provided that award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis to the offeror whose proposal “offers the best overall value to the Government.”  Id. at 102. Proposals were to be evaluated based on the following non-price factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical understanding and approach, staffing, project management plan, and past performance.  Id. at 102.  These non-price evaluation factors, when combined, were to be considered approximately equal to price.  Id. at 102. As relevant to this protest, the solicitation required offerors to submit business proposals to support their proposed prices.  Id. at 95-100.  The RFP stated that business proposals would be evaluated as follows: The business proposal evaluation will consist of a price analysis, cost realism analysis and limited cost analysis, if necessary.  A price analysis will be used to assist in determining the reasonableness to perform case reviews.  The cost realism analysis will consist of review and evaluation of specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed. Id.