MAXIMUS Federal Services, Inc. (28321321R00000001 )

B-419487.2,B-419487.3 Aug 06, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Maximus Federal Services, Inc., of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Cognosante, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 283213-21-R-00000001, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA), for program management services for the agency's Ticket-to-Work program. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  MAXIMUS Federal Services, Inc. File:  B-419487.2; B-419487.3 Date:  August 6, 2021 Brian A. Darst, Esq., Odin Feldman Pittleman PC, for the protester. Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Cognosante, LLC, the intervenor. Dorothy M. Guy, Esq., Brandon Dell’Aglio, Esq., and Jonathan Meyer, Esq., Social Security Administration, for the agency. Michael P. Grogan, Esq., Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest alleging that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows the evaluation and award decision were reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria, and, to the extent there were any errors, the protester cannot establish any reasonable possibility of competitive prejudice. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions regarding the protester’s key personnel is denied where the agency was under no obligation to raise its concerns with the protester because the identified concerns were not evaluated as a significant weakness, deficiency, or adverse past performance information that the protester had not previously had an opportunity to address. 3.  Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that the upward adjustments to protester’s proposed costs were reasonable. DECISION Maximus Federal Services, Inc., of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Cognosante, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 283213-21-R-00000001, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA), for program management services for the agency’s Ticket-to-Work program.  The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on April 21, 2020, pursuant to the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, seeking program management support for the agency’s Ticket-To-Work program.  This program provides disability beneficiaries with options for employment services while increasing provider incentives to serve those individuals.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 2, RFP at 1; exh. 3, Statement of Work (SOW)  at 1-3.[1]  The solicitation anticipated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, with a 1‑year base period of performance, four 1-year option periods, and a 3-month transition-out period.  RFP at 10-11.  The contractor will be required to complete specific tasks across eight broad objectives, such as conducting outreach and targeted marketing to beneficiaries, facilitating beneficiary access to employment networks, and facilitating and monitoring program processes.  See SOW at 3-4. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering six evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical approach; (2) corporate experience; (3) staff qualifications and experience; (4) management and staffing plan; (5) past performance; and (6) cost.  RFP at 109.  The solicitation advised that primary consideration would be given to the technical quality of proposals, and that “all evaluation factors other than cost, when combined[,] are significantly more important than cost.”  Id.  The SSA used an adjectival rating scheme for the technical factors, with the following possible rating combinations:  excellent; good; fair; and poor.[2]  See AR, exh. 4, Maximus Consensus TEP Report at 20-21, 37-38, 44, 61-62, 75; Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 5 n.6.  Cost, while not assigned an adjectival rating, would be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.  RFP at 110.  As relevant to this protest, for corporate experience, each offeror was to identify between three and five contracts or projects that encompass performing work of similar size, scope, and complexity to the RFP’s requirements.  RFP at 98.  The experience could be either as a prime contractor or as subcontractor, and references “may be submitted for subcontractors performing major aspects of the project. . .