Decision released: Protest Denial of DHA Enterprise Network Support Services requirement

Digest

This bid protest considers whether the Defense Health Agency (“DHA”) erred when it awarded ASRC Federal Cyber, LLC (“ASRC”), a firm fixed price contract for information technology services. Disappointed offeror, AccelGov, LLC (“AccelGov”), challenges the United States on three grounds: (1) DHA abused its discretion by failing to hold discussions with offerors; (2) DHA arbitrarily and irrationally evaluated proposals to determine AccelGov’s technical approach was unacceptable; and (3) DHA unreasonably evaluated AccelGov’s experience and personnel. AccelGov argues DHA conducted a flawed best value determination and requests injunctive and declaratory relief stating that DHA’s evaluation and award lacked a rational basis, was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to applicable statutes and regulations.

Discussion

AccelGov challenges DHA’s evaluation and award decision as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. (See generally Pl.’s MJAR). First, AccelGov argues DHA abused its discretion by failing to hold discussions when seven out of nine offerors received Unacceptable technical ratings. (Id. at 16–21). Second, AccelGov argues DHA’s evaluation of its Technical Approach was arbitrary and capricious. (Id. at 21–30). Specifically, AccelGov argues its proposal addressed requirement A, thus DHA put substance over form when it determined AccelGov’s proposed tools were insufficient. (Id. at 21–26). AccelGov also argues DHA arbitrarily concluded it could not determine whether AccelGov could satisfy requirement F because it “thoroughly described its approach[.]” (Id. at 28–29). AccelGov further contends DHA disregarded parts of its requirement G proposal. (Id. at 30). Third, AccelGov argues the DHA’s evaluation of its proposed Experience & Personnel Qualifications/Resume subfactor was unreasonable because DHA was “overly stringent” when identifying inconsistencies in AccelGov’s proposal and determining that the proposed personnel lacked the necessary education level. (Id. at 31–39). AccelGov concludes the Source Selection Authority’s (“SSA”) award decision was irrational. (Id. at 39–41). The United States and ASRC disagree, (see generally Def.’s xMJAR; Int.-Def.’s xMJAR); the Court also disagrees with AccelGov …

Decision

The Court determines that DHA reasonably reviewed proposals and made its award decision based on a best value tradeoff. Accordingly, the Court denies AccelGov’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, (Pl.’s MJAR, ECF No. 32), and grants the United States’ and ASRC’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, (Def.’s xMJAR, ECF No. 51; Int.-Def.’s xMJAR, ECF No. 50).

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story