MicroHealth, LLC (36C10B23R0029)

Case: B-422302 Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs : Department of Veterans Affairs Protester: MicroHealth, LLC Date: 2024-04-12 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-422302 Apr 12, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MicroHealth, LLC, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Technatomy Corporation, an SDVOSB of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B23R0029, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the development of platform-as-a-service (PaaS) and software-as-a-service (SaaS) applications to modernize the agency's mission-specific case management solutions. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, unequally evaluated proposals, and improperly performed its best-value tradeoff determination. 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: MicroHealth, LLC File: B-422302; B-422302.2 Date: April 12, 2024 Tara L. Ward, Esq., Peter M. Routh, Esq., and Elizabeth Hummel, Esq., McDermott Will & Emery LLP, for the protester. Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Terry L. Elling, Esq., and John M. McAdams III, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Technatomy Corporation, the intervenor. Annemarie Drazenovich, Esq., and Magda T. Reyes, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. 2. Protest alleging unequal treatment in the evaluation of proposals is denied where the protester has not demonstrated that the differences in the evaluation did not stem from differences in the proposals. 3. Protest challenging the agency’s best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the decision was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION MicroHealth, LLC, a service‑disabled veteran‑owned small business (SDVOSB) of Vienna, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Technatomy Corporation, an SDVOSB of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 36C10B23R0029, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the development of platform‑as‑a‑service (PaaS) and software‑as‑a‑service (SaaS) applications to modernize the agency’s mission‑specific case management solutions. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, unequally evaluated proposals, and improperly performed its best‑value tradeoff determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP pursuant to the fair opportunity source selection procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5 to SDVOSBs holding a National Institutes of Health (NIH), Chief Information Officer-Solutions and Partners 3 (CIO‑SP3) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFP, which the agency amended five times, sought proposals to develop Veteran Enterprise Module & System Integration Services (VEMSIS) PaaS/SaaS applications, utilizing a platform‑agnostic approach to deliver lower complexity, modular low code/no code (LCNC) solutions that enable an innovative, reusable service‑focused software component architecture. Id.; Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RFP at 44, 49. The RFP contemplated issuance of a single task order with fixed‑price and time‑and‑materials line items, and a 12‑month base period of performance with four 12‑month option periods and nine optional tasks. RFP at 49, 50, 171. The RFP provided for a best‑value tradeoff on the basis of three factors: technical; price; and past performance. Id. at 171. The technical factor was significantly more important than price, and price was significantly more important than past performance. Id. The technical and past performance factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...