Kauffman and Associates, Inc. (RFQ-231122)

B-421917.2,B-421917.3 Jan 29, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kauffman and Associates, Inc., a women-owned small business of Spokane, Washington, protests the issuance of an order to Octane Public Relations, a small disadvantaged business of Washington, District of Columbia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 231122, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for training planning and meetings support services. The protester raises multiple challenges concerning the agency's evaluation of vendors' quotations and subsequent best-value decision. We sustain 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: Kauffman and Associates, Inc. File: B-421917.2; B-421917.3 Date: January 29, 2024 Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Eric A. Valle, Esq., and Dozier L. Gardner Jr., Esq., Piliero Mazza, PLLC, for the protester. Pamela Waldron, Esq., and Jon J. Gottschalk, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and John Sorrenti, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s interpretation of the solicitation is sustained where the solicitation was latently ambiguous with regard to information vendors were required to submit with their quotations under the technical approach factor. 2. Protest alleging the agency failed to evaluate vendors’ quotations on an equal basis is sustained where the record demonstrates the agency did not evaluate quotations in an even-handed manner. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation of quotations is sustained where the agency’s evaluation was inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation, unsupported by the contemporaneous record, and otherwise unreasonable. 4. Protest challenging the agency’s price evaluation of the awardee’s quotation is sustained where the agency unreasonably determined the awardee’s pricing to be fair and reasonable despite the awardee proposing labor rates in excess of its Federal Supply Schedule contract rates. DECISION Kauffman and Associates, Inc., a women-owned small business of Spokane, Washington, protests the issuance of an order to Octane Public Relations, a small disadvantaged business of Washington, District of Columbia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 231122, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for training planning and meetings support services. The protester raises multiple challenges concerning the agency’s evaluation of vendors’ quotations and subsequent best-value decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On April 25, 2023, CMS issued the solicitation to five vendors under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, seeking quotations for in-person and virtual training services for the Indian Health Service on CMS benefits and programs, among other benefit programs. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 5; AR, Tab 2.1, RFQ at 13.[1] The RFQ was set aside for small businesses and contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price order for a 12-month base period with up to four 12-month options. RFQ at 1. The RFQ advised that CMS intended to issue an order to the vendor with the best-value quotation “by awarding to the highest technically rated [vendor(s)] that also demonstrate fair and reasonable pricing.” Id. at 9. The RFQ further stated that tradeoff decisions would be made to the extent necessary. Id. The solicitation established that the agency’s evaluation would consider five factors, each holding equal weight: (1) technical approach; (2) personnel; (3) management plan; (4) past performance; and (5) cost.[2] Id. at 10-11. The solicitation further advised that based on the prescribed evaluation scheme, the best-value quotation could be other than the lowest-price quotation, if the best-value quotation was the highest technically rated and had a fair and reasonable price. Id. at 9. The solicitation explained that CMS would assign adjectival ratings to assist in the evaluation of the four non-cost factors. Id. at 9-10. Under each evaluation factor, a quotation could be assigned a rating of unacceptable, good, or excellent. Id. To merit a rating of good or excellent under a particular factor, a vendor’s quotation needed to demonstrate one or more strengths, and contain no significant weaknesses or deficiencies. Id. at 9. The RFQ advised that “[a] combination of related [s]ignificant [w]eaknesses will result in a [d]efficiency, which would result in an elevated risk of performance and shall result in being removed from consideration of award.” Id.