“DIGEST
Protest asserting that the agency’s pre-award exchanges with vendors constituted improper and unequal discussions is denied where the agency conducted meaningful discussions with both the protester and the awardee, and provided an opportunity for the protester to revise or modify its quotation.”
“BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2019, DHA issued the RFQ as a total small business set-aside pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4 to vendors holding contracts under the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) No. 70, Information Technology, Health IT special item number 132-56. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; see also AR Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 54. The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a task order for sustainment and development IT services in support of the ILER platform. COS at 3; RFQ at 3-31. The RFQ provided that the task order would be performed over a base year, three option years, an 8‑month option period, and a 3-month option period. RFQ at 3‑31.
The RFQ stated award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on an integrated assessment of all evaluation factors. RFQ at 60. The RFQ listed five evaluation factors with no specified order of importance: technical approach, experience and personnel qualifications, management approach, past performance, and price. Id. at 60-63. The RFQ provided that as part of the evaluation of the technical approach, the agency would asses strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or risks to the vendors’ quotations. Id. at 60-61. The RFQ provided that the agency intended to issue a task order based on initial proposals, but explicitly reserved the right to hold discussions. Id. at 60.
On or before the August 16, 2019 closing date for initial quotations, the agency received complete quotations from three vendors, including Aderas and Concept Plus. COS at 3. After initial evaluation of the quotations, the agency entered into discussions to better understand the technical solutions quoted. Id. at 4. On August 30, the agency initiated discussions via email with all three vendors. Id. The emails each included a memorandum and evaluation notices describing each quotation’s assessed weaknesses. See, e.g. AR, Tab 7, Communications with Aderas Regarding Discussions. The memorandum provided to Aderas stated that the agency would conduct meaningful discussions and upon the conclusion of discussions request revised quotations. Id. at 3. The agency email to Aderas specified that the response to the evaluation notice and any revised quotations were due September 9. Id. at 1.
On September 8, both Aderas and Concept Plus provided the agency with responses to the evaluation notices and revised quotations…”
“DISCUSSION
Aderas contends that the agency improperly evaluated Concept Plus’s technical approach. Protest at 7-9. Aderas also contends that the agency unreasonably failed to conduct a price realism analysis. Protest at 9-10. Aderas further argues that the agency conducted improper and unequal discussions. Protest at 5-7; Protester’s Comments at 2-5. Specifically, Aderas contends that the agency decision to conduct discussions was unreasonable because Aderas does not believe its quotation could be improved; in Aderas’s view, its initial quotation merited the highest available rating. Protester’s Comments at 2‑3. Aderas also contends that the agency conducted unequal discussions, alleging that it engaged in meaningful discussions with Concept Plus, but not with Aderas. Id. at 3-5.
The agency argues that Aderas’s challenges to its technical evaluation and lack of price realism analysis fail to state a valid basis for protest and should be dismissed. Request for Dismissal at 5-10. The agency also argues that its decision to enter into discussions was reasonable given that the language of the RFQ explicitly permitted the agency to conduct discussions. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 3. Finally, the agency argues that the discussions were equal and reasonable because the agency conducted meaningful discussions with all three vendors, including Aderas. Id. at 2-7. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the agency…”
“DECISION
Aderas, Inc., a small business of Reston, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to Concept Plus LLC, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. HT001519R0014 issued by the Defense Health Agency (DHA), for commercial information technology (IT) sustainment and development services in support of the individual longitudinal exposure record (ILER) platform. The protester argues that the agency improperly evaluated Concept Plus’s technical approach, failed to conduct a price realism analysis, and failed to provide meaningful and equal discussions.
We deny the protest.”
Access the full 6-page decision here.
Related Items
Update: $25M DHA ILER Sustainment contract awarded to Concept Plus
