eTech Solutions, LLC (RFQ-230190)

B-421687,B-421687.2,B-421687.3 Aug 23, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights eTech Solutions, LLC, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Samtek, Inc., a small business of Aldie, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 230190, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for cloud computing and cloud-related information technology (IT) professional services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of quotations and 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: eTech Solutions, LLC File: B-421687; B-421687.2; B-421687.3 Date: August 23, 2023 Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., and Aleksey R. Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Shelly L. Ewald, Esq., Lauren E. Rankins, Esq., and Jordan A. Hutcheson, Esq., Watt Tieder Hoffer & Fitzgerald, LLP, for Samtek, Inc., the intervenor. Ethan S. Chae, Esq., Pamela R. Waldron, Esq., and Krystal A. Jordan, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations is denied where the evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency engaged in disparate treatment is denied where the differences in the evaluation stemmed from differences between the quotations. DECISION eTech Solutions, LLC, a small business of Silver Spring, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Samtek, Inc., a small business of Aldie, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 230190, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for cloud computing and cloud-related information technology (IT) professional services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ was issued on November 25, 2022, as a small business set-aside to holders of the General Services Administration multiple award schedule contracts for special item number 518210C, in accordance with the Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 628.[1] The solicitation sought quotations to provide cloud IT operations and maintenance services in support of the agency’s Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ). RFQ at 22. The RFQ anticipated the issuance of a task order, on a hybrid fixed-price, time‑and-material, and labor-hour basis, with a period of performance consisting of a 6‑month base period and three 1-year option periods. Id. at 628‑629. The RFQ informed vendors that a task order would be issued to the vendor offering “the best combination of technical capabilities and price to the Government” considering the following five factors: (1) corporate experience; (2) performance work statement (PWS); (3) key personnel; (4) section 508 compliance[2]; and (5) price. Id. at 637‑638. Corporate experience, PWS, and key personnel factors were equally important, while section 508 compliance would be evaluated only for compliance and acceptability on a pass/fail basis. Id. at 638‑639. Non-price factors were considered significantly more important than price. Id. at 638. For the evaluation of quotations under the corporate experience, PWS, and key personnel factors, the RFQ informed vendors that the agency would perform an analysis of technical quotations “on a factor-by-factor basis, noting the positive and negative aspects of each non-price factor, and assigning each non‑price factor a ‘Confidence Level.’” Id. The RFQ also provided as follows: The unique attributes that make up each vendor’s confidence level will be highlighted in the [technical evaluation panel (TEP)] report, and will lead to a confidence level designation by factor. The individual positive and negative aspects that make up the confidence level will be used in the best value determination. Id. The confidence level ratings of high confidence, some confidence, and low confidence would be assigned based on the agency’s level of confidence that the vendor “understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract” without government intervention. Id. The RFQ provided for a two‑phase, advisory down-select procedure. Id. at 631.