Softrams, LLC (210432)

B-419927.4,B-419927.5,B-419927.6,B-419927.7,B-419927.8 Feb 07, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Softrams, LLC, a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, and Chags Health Information Technology, LLC (C-HIT), a small business of Columbia, Maryland, protest the issuance of an order from the General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) to OmniFed LLC d/b/a Omni Federal (Omni), a small business of Gainesville, Virginia. The order arises from request for quotations (RFQ) No. 210432 issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for operations and management of the agency's identity management system. The protesters argue that Omni is ineligible for award, challenge the agency's evaluation of quotations, and contend that the best-value tradeoff was unreasonable. We sustain the protests. 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:  Softrams, LLC; Chags Health Information Technology, LLC File:  B-419927.4; B-419927.5; B-419927.6; B-419927.7; B-419927.8 Date:  February 7, 2022 Amy L. O’Sullivan, Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for Softrams, LLC; and David B. Dixon, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Chags Health Information Technology, LLC, the protesters. Elizabeth Jochum, Esq., and Oliver E. Jury, Esq., Blank Rome, for OmniFed LLC d/b/a Omni Federal, the intervenor. Martin McEnrue, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests challenging issuance of federal supply schedule order are sustained because, in making its source selection decision, the agency unreasonably relied upon a portion of the awarded quotation submitted by a vendor configuration that had been eliminated from the competition. DECISION Softrams, LLC, a small business of Leesburg, Virginia, and Chags Health Information Technology, LLC (C-HIT), a small business of Columbia, Maryland, protest the issuance of an order from the General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) to OmniFed LLC d/b/a Omni Federal (Omni), a small business of Gainesville, Virginia.  The order arises from request for quotations (RFQ) No. 210432 issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for operations and management of the agency’s identity management system.  The protesters argue that Omni is ineligible for award, challenge the agency’s evaluation of quotations, and contend that the best-value tradeoff was unreasonable. We sustain the protests. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2021, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the solicitation to small business FSS contract holders.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2a, RFQ at 1.[1]  The solicitation sought quotations for information technology services to maintain the agency’s existing identity management solution while also implementing continuous integration and development best practices to further enhance the existing solution.  AR, Tab 2b, RFQ attach. 1, Statement of Objectives at 3.  The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single fixed-price order with a 6-month base period, three 1-year option periods, and a fourth option period of four months.  RFQ at 1, 7.  The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and the following non-price factors:  (1) corporate experience; (2) performance work statement (PWS) response; (3) challenge exercise and communication ability; and (4) section 508 compliance.[2]  Id. at 7-8.  Non-price factors 1, 2, and 3 were of equal importance to each other, and were to be assessed using a confidence rating of high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence.  Id. at 8-9.  The section 508 compliance factor was significantly less important than the other three non-price factors, and was to be assessed on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 9.  The four non‑price factors combined were significantly more important than price, which was to be evaluated for reasonableness.  Id. at 9-10.  The solicitation established a two-phase evaluation.  RFQ at 1-2, 9-10.  During phase one, interested vendors were to submit quotations covering only factor 1 (corporate experience).[3]  Id. at 3.  Following evaluation of phase one quotations, the agency would conduct an advisory “down select,” in which CMS would advise vendors if they were “invited to participate in Phase Two, or . . .