Decision released: CMS Platform as a Service (“PaaS”) requirement protest denial

Background

CMS, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, provides healthcare coverage and support for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs.  The Infrastructure and User Services Group of CMS’s Office of Information Technology (“OIT”) “supports the CMS cloud infrastructure by provisioning, maintaining and supporting applications serving CMS’s beneficiaries.”  (AR 17.)

In September 2021, CMS awarded RevaComm a Small Business Innovation Research (“SBIR”) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contract.  (AR 1879.)  Under that contract, RevaComm was, among other things, to develop a Platform as a Service (“PaaS”) “to support more rapid development of secure and usable systems.”  (AR 1890.)  RevaComm used its SBIR contract to develop the batCAVE platform “to assist in the development, security, and operation (“DevSecOps”) of software apps that are onboarded onto the CMS system, including by automating much of the process for ensuring software apps meet the [g]overnment’s stringent cybersecurity requirements.”  (AR 1890; ECF 27-1 at 2.)  The batCAVE platform also includes “a curriculum to facilitate onboarding onto CMS’s information systems.”  (ECF 27-1 at 3.)…

The Court’s Decision

1. Factual Determinations The initial question addressed in the opinion was whether CMS was seeking to procure a product that performs the same or a similar functionality as the batCAVE platform and, if so, whether CMS was procuring that functionality through a developmental solution rather than acquiring the batCAVE platform.  IntelliBridge was found to have failed to meet its burden to demonstrate, as a factual matter, that the RFQ sought a product that replicates the functionality of the batCAVE platform.  Instead, CMS was found to be seeking a broad suite of cloudcomputing and IT-management services that it will acquire through an existing, commercially available solution.
2. To come to its conclusion, the Court compared the batCAVE platform with the RFQ, RFI, and MRR.  The Court found that while “portions of the RFI and the final SOO [ ] appear to seek services that parallel the batCAVE platform’s functionality,” IntelliBridge, 174 Fed. Cl. at 809, the “similarities between the services sought by the RFQ and the functionality of the batCAVE platform . . . make up only a modest and relatively insignificant portion of the RFQ and the related SOO, MRR, and RFI when viewed as a whole.”  Id. at 810.  The language used in the draft SOO, MRR, and RFI was broad and supported the “claim that the contract is for wholistic IT-management services and not just the [ ] service provided by the batCAVE platform.”  Id.  In other words, “the RFI’s language is more comprehensive than the description of the functionality of the batCAVE platform.” …

IntelliBridge, LLC and its subsidiary, RevaComm, Inc. (“IntelliBridge” or “the plaintiff”), filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) challenging the issuance by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) of Request for Quotation No. 75FCMC24Q0011 (“RFQ”) for the CMS Hybrid Cloud Product Engineering & Operations procurement (“PEO contract”).  CMS had previously used the plaintiff’s batCAVE platform to assist in the onboarding of software applications (“apps”) onto the CMS information-technology system by ensuring that the apps meet the government’s cybersecurity requirements.  IntelliBridge alleged that, in issuing the RFQ, CMS had violated 41 U.S.C. § 3307 (“section 3307”), a statute requiring agencies to conduct market research and to give a preference to commercial products and services in procuring goods and services, by seeking a developmental solution instead of acquiring the batCAVE platform to perform the required task.

On February 10, 2025, the protest was dismissed after the Court concluded that the RFQ did not seek a developmental solution that would replicate the functionality of the batCAVE platform, but instead sought cloud computing and IT-management services.  Thus, CMS had complied with section 3307 and appropriately conducted its market research on the services it sought to procure.  See IntelliBridge, LLC v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 793 (2025).

On March 10, 2025, the plaintiff filed a timely motion under Rule 59(a) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims for reconsideration of the judgment.  (ECF 52.)  The plaintiff argues that the ruling is premised on an argument not made by the defendant and, as a result, should have been considered forfeited, or, alternatively, the plaintiff should have been given the opportunity to address the argument in supplemental briefing.  Additionally, the plaintiff argues that the ruling conflicts with the plain meaning of 41 U.S.C. § 3307 and must be vacated.  The defendant opposes the motion.  (ECF 55.)

CONCLUSION

The plaintiff has not demonstrated any errors of fact or law in the original decision.1  Rather, it concocts an inferred conclusion that does not reflect what was decided after briefing and argument.  IntelliBridge has failed to demonstrate that a clear error must be corrected.  Instead, the plaintiff expresses a mere disagreement with the Court’s decision.  The Rule 59 motion raises no “intervening change in the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or a need to correct clear factual or legal error or prevent manifest injustice.”  Biery, 818 F.3d at 711.  The plaintiff has not established an entitlement to have the decision rejecting its claim reconsidered.  The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF 52) is DENIED.

See the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story