Court of Federal Claims Decision Released: HHS SAMHSA IT Services protest denial

This is a post-award bid protest.  Plaintiff AccelGov, LLC (“AccelGov”) challenges the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (“SAMHSA” or “the Agency”) award of a contract to provide Information Technology (“IT”) services under Request for Quote 140D0424Q0555 (“the Solicitation” or “RFQ”).  AccelGov is a joint venture between AGovX, LLC (“AGovX”) and 22nd Century Technologies, Inc. (“22nd Century Technologies”).  The Agency awarded the contract to Dynanet Corporation (“Dynanet” or “Intervenor”).  After conducting a technical evaluation using three non-price factors, the Agency determined that Dynanet received the highest possible score on all three factors while AccelGov received a lower score on Factor 1 and Factor 3.  Under the Solicitation’s guidelines, price was the least important factor.  AR 1898.  The Agency selected Dynanet for the award despite it offering a higher price than AccelGov.  AR 1901. According to AccelGov, the Agency’s evaluation and award were arbitrary and irrational.  Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. at 6 (“Pl.’s Mot. for J.”), ECF No. 29.  AccelGov asserts that under Factor 1 the Agency applied unstated evaluation criteria, made findings at odds with the record, and improperly penalized AccelGov for reliance on a subcontractor and making typos in its proposal.  Id. at 7–21. AccelGov also claims the Agency came to conclusions inconsistent with the record and applied criteria contrary to the Solicitation’s requirements under Factor 3.  Id. at 21–25.  AccelGov alleges these evaluation errors resulted in a flawed and irrational best value trade-off analysis that were prejudicial.  Id. at 26–27.  In response, the Government and Intervenor argue that the Agency rationally determined that Dynanet’s proposal provided the best value to the Government in a reasoned decision based on the technical evaluation factors…

B. Evaluation Criteria The Solicitation stated that evaluators would grade proposals using four factors: Factor 1, Technical Approach, Management Approach, and Understanding of the SOW; Factor 2, Staffing Plan, Transition-In Plan, and Personnel Qualifications; Factor 3, Past Performance; and, finally, Price. AR 315–16. The “non-price factors [were] of equal importance, and when combined, [were] significantly more important than price.”  AR 316 (emphasis added).  The Agency would make the award “to the Offeror that represents the Best Value to the Government and proposes a reasonable price.”  Id.  The Solicitation explained that “[t]he Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror if the technical benefits of the higher priced quote are determined to be worth the additional price.”..

Award Decision

The Contracting Officer (“CO”) conducted a best value trade-off analysis after independently reviewing the TEP’s non-price evaluation and concurring with the ratings given to each Offeror.  AR 1897.  The CO noted that the ratings “accurately reflect the evaluation criteria in accordance with the terms and conditions and the technical evaluation factors in the Solicitation.”  Id.  The CO also reviewed each Offeror’s price, determined that Dynanet’s price was reasonable, and reiterated that “[p]rice is the least important factor.”  AR 1896–97.  In reviewing AccelGov, the CO concluded that although AccelGov’s price was [***] lower than Dynanet’s price, “AccelGov, LLC’s technical approach offered numerous disadvantages when compared to Dynanet’s quote.”  AR 1898.  The CO noted the findings that “AccelGov LLC lacks forward thinking, as their quote does not introduce innovative perspectives,” and “they prefer continuing [the] status quo.”  Id.  The CO quoted specific proposal language that AccelGov’s team “will maintain ongoing situational awareness” and will “define the Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) when the decision is made to implement it.”  Id.  The CO repeated that AccelGov “show[s] no forward thinking for change.”  Id.  The CO further noted the “difficulties in determining whether the [***] reference was relevant and that the [***] reference lacked sufficient detail in tasks 4, 5, and 7 as well as not providing technical specifics on migration services or AWS tools.”  Id.  The CO concluded that “there were no identifiable advantages presented in AccelGov’s quote when compared to Dynanet’s” and that as a result Dynanet’s proposal “represented the best value.”  Id…

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are DENIED.  ECF No. 29; ECF No. 3.  Defendant’s and Intervenor’s Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record are GRANTED.  ECF No. 32; ECF No. 28.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

More here.

🔊 Listen to Story