Octo Consulting Group, Inc. (1562705)

B-421182,B-421182.2 Jan 17, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Octo Consulting Group, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-CMS-220925, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for information technology (IT) services to support the Continuously Available CMS Hosting Environment (CACHE) Managed Infrastructure Service Provider (MiSP) program. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations, which resulted in an unreasonable source selection 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: Octo Consulting Group, Inc. File: B-421182; B-421182.2 Date: January 17, 2023 Damien C. Specht, Esq., Caitlin A. Crujido, Esq., and Roke Iko, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for the protester. Shelly L. Ewald, Esq., Andrew L. Balland, Esq., and Jordan A. Hutcheson, Esq., Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP, for Leidos, Inc., the intervenor. Lucy Mac Gabhann, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of quotations is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Octo Consulting Group, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Leidos, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ‑CMS‑220925, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for information technology (IT) services to support the Continuously Available CMS Hosting Environment (CACHE) Managed Infrastructure Service Provider (MiSP) program. The protester contends the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations, which resulted in an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The CACHE MiSP program is a multi-prong initiative designed to ensure that the IT infrastructure, hosting and enterprise services that support CMS’s operations remain flexible and secure enough to support the needs of the agency. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4.B, RFQ, amend. 0003, Attach. 1, Statement of Objectives (SOO) at 6.[1] To achieve this end, the agency issued the RFQ to vendors holding General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule/Multiple Award Schedule contracts under special item number 54151S, IT Professional Services. AR, Tab 4.A, RFQ, amend. 0003 at 1; AR, Tab 15, Award Decision at 5. The RFQ, which was issued on June 6, 2022, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 8.405, contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed-price/time-and-materials task order to the responsible vendor whose quotation represented the best value to the government. RFQ at 1, 7. The period of performance consisted of a base period of eight months, four 1-year option periods, and one 4-month option period. AR, Tab 5, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFQ provided for a three-phase evaluation scheme, considering four non-price evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: corporate experience; solution exercise/oral presentation; performance work statement (PWS) and quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP); and section 508[2] Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT). RFQ at 6. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id. at 7. Between each evaluation phase, the agency would issue an advisory notification to the vendors that submitted a quotation for that phase, informing each vendor of the evaluation results for its quotation and whether the vendor should participate in the subsequent phase.[3] Id. Quotations for phase one were due by June 20. AR, Tab 15, Award Decision at 5. For phase one, the agency would evaluate corporate experience. RFQ at 8. Under this factor, vendors were required to submit up to three case studies that demonstrated recent performance of work similar to the tasks sought by the agency in this procurement. Id. The agency would evaluate the similarity between the vendor’s submitted experience and the work required by the agency, giving consideration to the technology, architecture, stakeholders (e.g., clients, users, etc.), tools, and methods of the vendor. Id. For phase two, the agency would evaluate the vendor’s solution exercise/oral presentation. Id. at 9. Under this factor, vendors were to give a presentation that consisted of an introduction, an oral presentation, and if necessary, a session of clarifying questions and answers. Id.