Prosperitus Solutions, LLC (HT940823R0001)

B-421461,B-421461.2 May 25, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Prosperitus Solutions, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract and task order to AIMS-USGP JV, LLC, of Aldie, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT940823R0001, issued by the Defense Health Agency for medical administrative technicians and other administrative support at Department of Defense (DOD) Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) in San Antonio, Texas. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. 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: Prosperitus Solutions, LLC File: B-421461; B-421461.2 Date: May 25, 2023 John L. Holtz, Esq., Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., and Shane J. McCall, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff, LLC, for the protester. Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., Camille Chambers, Esq., and Chelsea A. Padgett, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for AIMS-USGP JV, LLC, the intervenor. Julia Hatch, Esq., Jason R. Smith, Esq., and Jessica F. Volsey, Esq., Defense Health Agency, for the agency. Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s past performance is denied where the record shows the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Prosperitus Solutions, LLC, of San Antonio, Texas, protests the award of a contract and task order to AIMS-USGP JV, LLC, of Aldie, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HT940823R0001, issued by the Defense Health Agency for medical administrative technicians and other administrative support at Department of Defense (DOD) Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) in San Antonio, Texas. The protester asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on October 31, 2022, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and subpart 15.3, for medical administrative technicians and other medical administrative support services at various DOD MTFs in San Antonio, Texas. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Conformed RFP (RFP) at 1; RFP, attach. 2, FAR provision 52.212-2 Addendum at 71; RFP, attach. 3, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 77.[1] The RFP required 16 positions to be filled, including 14 types of medical administrative technicians. RFP at 6-13; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5-6. Among the medical administrative technician positions to be filled were mammography administrative assistant II, medical records clerk, dermatology administrative technician, urology administrative technician, allergy/immunization administrative technician, and family health administrative technician. RFP at 6-8; PWS at 77, 95-113; COS at 5. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to be performed over a 5-year period. RFP, attach. 2, FAR provision 52.212-2 Addendum at 71; PWS at 77. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical, past performance, and price factors. PWS at 71. The technical factor acted as a “gate” criterion that was to be evaluated solely for acceptability. A proposal had to receive a rating of acceptable under both technical subfactors (management plan and staffing plan) for an overall technical rating of acceptable in order to then be evaluated under the past performance and price factors. Id. at 74. For purposes of the best-value tradeoff, past performance was significantly more important than price. Id. Under the past performance factor, offerors could submit a maximum of three past performance references. RFP, attach. 1, FAR provision 52.212-2 Addendum at 69. The RFP provided that the agency would evaluate references for recency and relevancy. Id. at 72. To be recent, a past performance reference had to be ongoing or have been performed within the past three years from the date the present solicitation was issued. Id. To be relevant, a past performance reference had to involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as required by the RFP. Id. at 73. After evaluating each reference for recency and relevancy, the agency evaluated the quality of an offeror’s performance and assigned an overall confidence rating of no confidence, limited confidence, neutral confidence, satisfactory confidence, or substantial confidence. Id. If an offeror had no recent/relevant past performance information, an offeror’s past performance was assigned a neutral confidence rating. Id.