Decision Released: DHA Healthcare Delivery Modernization – (BOA) protest dismissal

File No. B-422439

Digest

1. Protest that agency improperly issued a task order outside the scope of a basic ordering agreement (BOA), awarded as part of a commercial solutions opening (CSO) procurement, is dismissed for failing to state a valid basis of protest, where the record shows that the order was properly issued in accordance with the terms of the CSO and the BOA.
2. Protest that an order issued under a BOA awarded pursuant to the terms of a CSO creates unmitigable organizational conflicts of interest is dismissed where the protester’s assertions do not present hard facts necessary to demonstrate that any actual or potential organizational conflicts of interest exist.

Discussion

The protester contends that the January 10 order issued to Peraton is outside the scope of Peraton’s BOA and that it creates unmitigable organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs).[1] The first argument about the scope of Peraton’s BOA is premised on the fact that the order issued to Peraton directs that ViiMed’s subcontractor on ViiMed’s previous prototype orders, T6 Health Systems (T6), will continue prototype development as a subcontractor to Peraton. Protest at 4-5. The protester states that the agency has admitted that T6 will build components of ViiMed’s solution and continue to build T6’s portion of the work as defined in ViiMed’s third prototype order and argues that the scope of work in the Peraton BOA does not encompass development of ViiMed’s specific components. Id. The agency argues that the protest should be dismissed because the order was properly issued in accordance with the terms of the CSO and Peraton’s BOA, and the allegations are legally and factually insufficient to demonstrate any violation of statute or regulation. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 13-19.

Here, as noted above, the CSO stated that an iterative prototyping process would allow the Government to modify the scope of a prototype contract to allow for the adaptation and modification of the technology being prototyped to meet additional unique and discrete purposes, and the sequential prototype iterations could result in a separate prototype project rather than a modification of the original prototype contract. CSO at 3. Further, the BOAs awarded to Peraton and ViiMed were virtually identical, and both stated: “The sequential prototype iterations may result in a separate prototype project rather than a modification of the original …

Decision

ViiNetwork, Inc., doing business as ViiMed, a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the issuance of order No. HT0038-24-F-0005 pursuant to basic ordering agreement (BOA) No. HT0038-22-G-0002 to Peraton, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, for healthcare delivery modernization. The protester argues that the agency improperly issued an order outside the scope of a BOA awarded to Peraton. The protester further contends that issuance of the order creates unmitigable organizational conflicts of interest.

We dismiss the protest.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story