Island Peer Review Organization, Inc., d/b/a IPRO

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release without redactions..

Decision

Matter of: Island Peer Review Organization, Inc., d/b/a IPRO

File: B-417297.2

Date: September 12, 2025

DIGEST

1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under an eligibility assessment is sustained where the contemporaneous record is insufficiently documented to allow our Office to review the agency’s decision for reasonableness, and where the agency’s post‑protest statements are not consistent with the record and indicate that aspects of the evaluation were not documented.

2. Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation of proposals and best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation and decision were unreasonable.

Island Peer Review Organization, Inc., doing business as IPRO, of Lake Success, New York, protests the issuance of a task order to Superior Health Quality Alliance (Superior Health), of Madison, Wisconsin, under the instant task order request for proposals (TORP)[1] issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for healthcare quality improvement services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the eligibility assessment and the technical factor, as well as the best‑value tradeoff decision.

We sustain the protest.

Background

CMS issued the TORP on July 25, 2024, under CMS’s Network of Quality Improvement and Innovation Contractors (NQIIC) indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract, seeking contractors to act as quality improvement organizations (QIOs) for CMS’s quality improvement network (QIN) QIO program. COS at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2.15, Statement of Work (SOW) at 4.[2] In short, the QIN‑QIO program assists healthcare providers and practitioners with high‑quality, hands‑on quality improvement assistance. AR, Tab 2.15, SOW at 4; see also Maximus Fed. Servs., B‑410359, Dec. 17, 2014, 2015 CPD ¶ 11 at 2 (discussion of QIN‑QIOs). The instant matter involves CMS’s QIN‑QIO program for the northeast region (Region 1), which covers Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Protest at 1; Agency Report (AR), Tab 2.34, Amended 13th Statement of Work (SOW) at 19.

The TORP contemplated the issuance of a cost‑plus‑fixed‑fee task order with one 60‑month period of performance. AR, Tab 2.18, Terms and Conditions at 2‑3. CMS would issue the task order in accordance with the fair opportunity procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5. AR, Tab 2.35, Instructions & Evaluation at 1.[3]

As an initial requirement, offerors had to satisfy a QIO eligibility assessment by meeting “prequalification criteria” as established in the solicitation and relevant law and regulation. Id. at 3‑4 (referencing section 1153 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320c‑2, and 42 C.F.R. § 475). The QIO eligibility assessment would be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. To earn a rating of acceptable, an offeror was required to “adequately demonstrate that they meet the eligibility requirements and definition of a QIO.” Id. at 3‑4. Relevant to the protest, prime contractors were responsible for meeting the QIO eligibility assessment “on the merits and structure of their own organization” and the TORP instructed offerors that the response specific to the eligibility assessment “should only include relevant experience and other information of the prime contractor, not subcontractors.” Id. at 3. Offerors rated as unacceptable under the QIO eligibility assessment would not be considered for award. Id. at 4.

CMS would evaluate proposals rated as acceptable under the QIO eligibility assessment using a best‑value tradeoff considering the following technical evaluation factors, shown here in order of importance: approach to achieving quality outcomes; portfolio and program management plan for the region; staffing; and cost/price. Id. at 2‑4. The TORP advised that when combined, the non‑cost/price factors would be considered approximately equal in importance to cost/price.[4] Id. at 2. Proposals were due by September 10. AR, Tab 2.1, TORP Cover Letter at 2.

CMS received three proposals in response to the TORP, including proposals from IPRO and Superior Health. COS at 3; see AR, Tab 7.4, Best-Suited Offeror Memo at 4. The agency conducted an initial evaluation of proposals and determined that all three proposals were technically acceptable, and that IPRO and Superior Health offered proposals with similar technical merit and cost/price. COS at 5. The contracting officer then opened discussions with IPRO and Superior Health, excluding the third offeror due to its higher proposed cost. Id.; AR, Tab 7.4, Best‑Suited Offeror Memo at 11.

On March 17, 2025, IPRO and Superior Health submitted final revised proposals. Id. The evaluation results were as follows:

	IPRO	Superior Health
QIO Eligibility	Acceptable	Acceptable
Overall Technical[5]	Satisfactory	Very Good
Approach to Achieving Quality Outcomes	Satisfactory	Very Good
Portfolio and Program Management Plan	Satisfactory	Satisfactory
Staffing	Very Good	Satisfactory
Revised Proposed Cost	$49,419,219	$48,528,498

 

COS at 5; AR, Tab 7.6, SSD at 4, 13. In short, CMS found Superior Health’s proposal to be higher technically rated with a lower proposed cost, and that it represented the best value to the government. COS at 7. Accordingly, the agency issued the task order to Superior Health. Id. Following the award notice, IPRO requested a debriefing which was provided on May 30. Id. IPRO filed the instant protest on June 6.[6]

Discussion

The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and source selection decision. First, IPRO challenges CMS’s evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment. Second, IPRO argues that the evaluation of proposals under the portfolio and program management plan for the region factor was erroneous and unequal. Finally, IPRO challenges CMS’s best‑value tradeoff decision. As discussed below, we sustain the protest ground challenging the evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment. We deny the remaining protest grounds.[7]

It is a fundamental principle of federal procurement law that an agency must evaluate proposals consistent with the terms of the solicitation and, while the evaluation of offerors’ proposals generally is a matter within the procuring agency’s discretion, our Office will question an agency’s evaluation where it is unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria, or undocumented. SierTek‑Peerless JV LLC, B‑422085, B‑422085.2, Jan. 2, 2024, 2024 CPD ¶ 1 at 4; Tantus Techs., Inc., B‑411608, B‑411608.3, Sept. 14, 2015, 2015 CPD ¶ 299 at 6. Where an agency fails to document its evaluation or retain evaluation materials, it bears the risk that there may not be adequate supporting rationale in the record for GAO to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for its decisions. E.g., SierTek‑Peerless JV LLC, supra at 4-6 (sustaining prior experience evaluation challenge for lack of documentation in the record); Washington Business Dynamics, LLC, B‑421953, B‑421953.2, Dec. 18, 2023, 2023 CPD ¶ 286 at 14-15 (insufficient documentation under technical capability factor); Ekagra Software Techs., Ltd., B‑415978.3, B‑415978.4, Oct. 25, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 377 at 3‑6 (same, under organizational experience factor); Philips Healthcare Informatics, B‑405382.2 et al., May 14, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 220 at 9‑11 (same, under past performance factor).

When reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals, nor substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion. DPR‑RQ Constr., LLC, B‑422081.2, Jan. 23, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ 41 at 3. Rather, we will review the record to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Id. A protester’s disagreement with the agency’s judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Id.

QIO Eligibility Assessment

IPRO challenges the evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment. Protest at 14‑18; Comments at 3‑15. IPRO alleges that Superior Health is an organization that has no employees and therefore could not satisfy the solicitation’s prequalification criteria on the merits and structure of its own organization without reliance on subcontractors.[8]

As discussed below, the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment is insufficiently documented for our Office to review how the agency determined Superior Health satisfied the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization, as required. If, as IPRO alleges, Superior Health submitted a proposal as a prime contractor working through subcontractors, the record suggests that Superior Health addressed the QIO eligibility assessment based on the experience and information of its subcontractors rather than on the merits and structure of its own organization, which would violate the plain terms of the solicitation. Moreover, the agency has not otherwise explained how this type of organization would be consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

The QIO eligibility assessment was established as a gateway requirement to be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. AR, Tab 2.35, Instructions & Evaluation at 3‑4 (proposals rated as unacceptable would not be “further considered in the evaluation process”). Under the QIO eligibility assessment, offerors were required to make certain demonstrations based on the merits and structure of the prime contractor’s organization.[9] Id. As noted above, the solicitation advised that responses to the QIO eligibility assessment “should only include relevant experience and other information of the prime contractor, not subcontractors.” Id. at 4. In evaluating proposals under the QIO eligibility assessment factor, the agency was to “review the QIO Eligibility Assessment information submitted by the offeror to evaluate whether or not they have adequately demonstrated meeting the eligibility requirements and definition of a QIO.” Id.

Superior Health’s QIO eligibility assessment narrative stated that it was “established as a joint venture in 2018[.]” AR, Tab 4.1, QIO Eligibility Narrative at 2. The narrative explained that Superior Health was composed of the following eight member organizations: Illinois Health and Hospital Association; MetaStar; Michigan Health & Hospital Association; Midwest Kidney Network; Minnesota Hospital Association; iMPROve Health; Stratis Health; and Wisconsin Hospital Association. Id. Superior Health further explained that “[t]ogether these members serve as a comprehensive QIO with integrated capabilities to engage today’s complex health care landscape.” Id. The proposal indicated that Superior Health was relying on the experience and information of these eight companies to meet the QIO eligibility requirements. Id. at 3-4.

While generally stating in its QIO eligibility assessment narrative that it is structured as a joint venture with eight members, areas of Superior Health’s proposal more specifically refer to these members as subcontractors. For example, in its business proposal (the cost/price proposal), Superior Health listed itself as the prime contractor and the previously discussed eight members as its “subcontractors[.]” AR, Tab 4.72, Revised Business Proposal at 2. The business proposal included a “Master Subcontractor Agreement” entered into by Superior Health and MetaStar, which stated “MetaStar and Superior Health attest that each organization is acting as an independent party and that MetaStar will be considered a subcontractor for purpose of this proposal.” Id. at 40; see also id. at 25 (stating that the agreement between Superior Health and MetaStar is an example and that Superior Health has similar agreements with its other members).

As a second example, in its technical proposal, Superior Health stated that its key personnel and team members were employed by subcontractors. AR, Tab 4.73, Revised Technical Proposal at 34. The proposal then identified each key person, many of which were employed by one of the eight members/subcontractors. See e.g., id. at 36 (proposed key person employed with Illinois Health and Hospital Association), at 38 (proposed key person employed with MetaStar), at 40 (proposed key person employed with Illinois Health and Hospital Association).

The agency rated Superior Health’s proposal as acceptable under the QIO eligibility assessment. AR, Tab 5.11, Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Report at 4. The agency’s evaluation under the QIO eligibility assessment was documented as a table with three columns. Id. at 4‑9. The first column showed the relevant consideration (e.g., “contractor has a governing body that includes at least one individual who is a representative of health care providers . . .”), the second column showed whether the consideration was satisfied, and the third column quoted language from the proposal which, presumably, was relevant to the agency’s evaluation of the consideration at hand. Id. Notably absent from the TEP report is any discussion or analysis of how the quoted proposal language met the relevant evaluation consideration. Id.

As previously discussed, IPRO contends that Superior Health is an organization with no employees and thus no experience of its own, making it impossible for Superior Health to satisfy the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization, as required. Protest at 16‑18. IPRO contends that the awardee relied on its eight member organizations that will perform the work as subcontractors to meet the QIO eligibility requirements. Comments at 4. The protester further asserts that the record does not reflect any consideration of whether Superior Health based its QIO eligibility assessment narrative on the relevant experience and information of the prime contractor, not subcontractors, as required. Id. at 11.

CMS argues that the factual premise of IPRO’s challenge is flawed. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 5‑7. In this regard, CMS asserts that Superior Health properly submitted a proposal as an unpopulated joint venture with eight members, rather than, as IPRO suggests, a prime contractor subcontracting 100 percent of the work. Id. CMS further argues that Superior Health met the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization, by relying on its eight member organizations. Id. at 7‑9 (distinguishing members of a joint venture from subcontractors). In this regard, the contracting officer states that the solicitation did not prescribe a way joint ventures would be evaluated, and that Superior Health, an unpopulated joint venture with eight member organizations, met the QIO eligibility assessment requirement.[10] COS at 8‑9; see also MOL at 7 (“The agency reasonably considered [Superior Health] eligible because the joint venture, as a prime contractor and through its members, ha[s] the relevant experience.”).

In order to further develop the record on this issue, GAO requested briefing from CMS on the process the agency used to determine QIO eligibility. GAO Req. for Briefing. In short, based on our review of the record, it was not clear how the agency reached its conclusion to rate the awardee’s proposal as acceptable. First, we asked CMS to explain how it determined Superior Health was a joint venture with eight members as opposed to a prime contractor working through multiple subcontractors, noting that Superior Health’s proposal was not clear on its organizational structure. Id. Second, we asked CMS to explain how it determined Superior Health satisfied the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization. Id.

In response to our first question, the agency states that it viewed Superior Health as a joint venture based on its QIO eligibility assessment narrative. Supp. COS at 1 (citing to AR, Tab 4.1, QIO Eligibility Narrative). The agency also refers to Superior Health’s business proposal, which stated that it is an unpopulated joint venture with eight member organizations, and Superior Health’s technical proposal which “references their membership structure throughout.” Id. at 3. In addition to discussing Superior Health’s proposal, the agency explains that it reviewed Superior Health’s website which states that it is composed of eight member organizations. Id.

In response to our second question, CMS states that it determined Superior Health met the QIO eligibility assessment based on its QIO eligibility assessment narrative. Id. at 5. CMS further states that it “also used past agency experience working with [Superior Health], [contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS)] evaluations, and current contracts [Superior Health] held to determine their eligibility.” Id. Finally, referencing the TEP report, the agency states that the three‑column chart described above “provided a rationale for why [Superior Health] met the statutory requirements.” Id. (citing AR, Tab 5.11, TEP Report at 4-9).

Based on our review of the record, the agency’s evaluation under the QIO eligibility assessment was unreasonable. The record contains no contemporaneous documentation of how CMS determined that Superior Health satisfied the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization, as required by the terms of the solicitation.[11] In this regard, the record contains no discussion or analysis from the agency. It simply quoted language from Superior Health’s proposal without any explanation as to how the quoted language satisfied the relevant requirement. See AR, Tab 5.11, TEP Report at 4‑9. This is unreasonable. E.g., SierTek‑Peerless JV LLC, supra at 4-6; Washington Business Dynamics, LLC, supra; Ekagra Software Techs., Ltd., supra; Philips Healthcare Informatics, supra.

Additionally, the agency’s response to our request for briefing is insufficient to reconcile the gaps in the record. The response does not address the inconsistencies in Superior Health’s proposal regarding its organizational structure, nor does it shed any light onto how the agency determined Superior Health met the QIO eligibility assessment on the merits and structure of its own organization. For example, the agency does not explain how it reconciled the language in Superior Health’s proposal stating that it was an unpopulated joint venture with eight member organizations that performed the work as subcontractors. This failure was significant because the solicitation established that QIO eligibility had to be based on the relevant experience and other information of the prime contractor, not subcontractors. In this regard, the agency’s supplemental response suffers from the same defect as the contemporaneous record‑‑while it references various material from the record, it does not contain any discussion or analysis of the cited material. See generally Supp. COS.

Further, the agency’s response to our request for briefing indicates that numerous aspects of the evaluation of Superior Health’s QIO eligibility were not documented. In this regard, the agency states that in evaluating Superior Health’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment, it considered Superior Health’s website, past experience with CMS, CPARS reports, and current contracts. Supp. COS at 3-5. None of these considerations are discussed in the TEP report under the QIO eligibility assessment or the SSD, nor have the referenced CPARS reports or “current contracts” been submitted into the record for review.

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest; we will not sustain a protest unless a protester demonstrates that, but for the agency’s actions, it would have had a substantial chance at receiving award. SierTek‑Peerless JV, supra at 6. We find that IPRO was prejudiced by the agency’s actions. The record reflects that IPRO and Superior Health were the only offerors remaining in the competition. See AR, Tab 7.6, SSD at 1. If the agency were to reevaluate proposals and find that Superior Health’s proposal does not satisfy the QIO eligibility assessment, Superior Health would be ineligible for award, putting IPRO in line for issuance of the task order. This demonstrates competitive prejudice. Accordingly, we sustain the protest.

Technical Evaluation

IPRO also challenges the agency’s technical evaluation of proposals. First, IPRO argues that Superior Health’s proposal should have been lower‑rated under the portfolio and program management plan for the region factor because, according to IPRO, Superior Health will subcontract 100 percent of the required work. Second, IPRO raises an allegation of disparate treatment. As discussed below, we deny these challenges.

IPRO first challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal under the portfolio and program management plan for the region factor.[12] Protest at 18‑20; Comments at 15‑18. Essentially, IPRO contends that Superior Health’s proposal should have been lower‑rated due to Superior Health’s alleged intent to subcontract 100 percent of the required work.

Under the portfolio and program management plan for the region factor, offerors were instructed to:

demonstrate their capacity for accountability, efficiency, program oversight and implementation, communication and collaboration within the organization, specifically their ability to internally manage the entire effort of the work across multiple states/territories and the ability to access additional resources (inclusive of skill sets), if needed, to fulfill the requirements in the SOW[.]

AR, Tab 2.35, Instructions & Evaluation at 8. Offerors were further required to describe “plans for how the work will be managed at the regional level, across a multi‑state/territory service area, that will demonstrate leadership, accountability, oversight and monitoring, communication, and collaboration[.]” Id. Of relevance to the protest, the solicitation required offerors to discuss a “portfolio management approach that reflects and leverages the industry’s best practices and standards for effectively managing a significant portfolio of this size and scope and achieving business outcomes.” Id. In turn, the agency was to evaluate the extent to which offerors addressed the required areas of experience, and their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the areas of experience. Id. at 9.

IPRO provides two main reasons for why it believes Superior Health’s proposal should have received a lower rating here. First‑‑based on its assumption that Superior Health will subcontract 100 percent of the work‑‑the protester argues that “[a]gencies commonly evaluate organizations structured similarly to [Superior Health’s] as riskier than ones similar to IPRO’s organization, and they deny the riskier organization the award as a result.” Protest at 19‑20 (citing Austal USA, LLC, B‑417593, Aug. 28, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 307; Sevatec, Inc. et al., B‑413559.3 et al., Jan. 11, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 3; Hornet Joint Venture, B‑258430.2, Jan. 27, 1995, 95‑1 CPD ¶ 55; and Information Spectrum, Inc., B‑256609.3, B‑256609.5, Sept. 1, 1994, 94‑2 CPD ¶ 251). Second, IPRO concedes that using subcontractors is not per se risky; however, it argues that Superior Health’s proposed approach creates risk because its proposal does not include a plan on how it will monitor or manage subcontractors. Comments at 17, 20.

In response, CMS argues that the factual premise for this protest ground is incorrect. MOL at 10. That is, CMS argues that IPRO misunderstands Superior Health’s organizational structure and erroneously assumes that Superior Health’s proposed approach includes subcontracting 100 percent of the work. Id. According to the agency, Superior Health did not propose to subcontract 100 percent of the required work and therefore the factual basis for the protest is incorrect. Id. Additionally, CMS argues that its evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal under the overall technical factor was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Id.; COS at 9.

We deny this protest ground. Even if everything IPRO alleges about Superior Health’s organizational structure is true, IPRO has not explained how the agency’s evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal was unreasonable under the terms of this solicitation. Contrary to IPRO’s argument, there is nothing in the solicitation requiring the agency to assess proposed levels of subcontracting under this factor, nor is there any indication that the agency would assess risk for proposing certain levels of subcontracting or for electing not to include a subcontracting plan with a proposal. See AR, Tab 2.35, Instructions & Evaluation at 8‑9 (portfolio and program management plan for the region factor).

To the extent IPRO argues CMS was required to assess risk to Superior Health’s proposal because agencies in other procurements have evaluated as risky organizations with a similar structure as Superior Health, see Protest at 19‑20 (citing prior GAO decisions), we note that every procurement stands on its own, such that an agency’s actions in one procurement have no bearing on actions in another procurement. See e.g., Shertech Pharmacy Piedmont, LLC‑‑Recon., B‑419069.2, Apr. 1, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 134 at 2; AdvanceMed Corp., B‑415360 et al., Dec. 19, 2017, 2018 CPD ¶ 4 at 5. Further, as the intervenor points out, the GAO decisions that IPRO cites in support of this argument are distinguishable from the case at hand in that the cited authorities, at best, stand for the idea that an agency may reasonably determine that overreliance on subcontracting could possibly present a performance risk. Intervenor Comments at 6; see e.g., Austal USA, LLC, supra at 8 (proposed use of subcontractors was part of the evaluation considerations); Sevatec, Inc., supra (protest challenging the terms of a solicitation pertaining to how the agency would assess performance risk to subcontracting arrangements). In sum, we conclude that IPRO’s challenge represents disagreement with the agency’s evaluation conclusions which, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a protest. DPR‑RQ Constr., LLC, supra.

IPRO next contends that CMS conducted a disparate evaluation of technical proposals under the portfolio and program management plan for the region factor. Protest at 20‑23; Comments at 18‑20. IPRO argues that the agency’s evaluation was unequal because both it and Superior Health earned ratings of satisfactory under the factor. Comments at 19. In raising this challenge, IPRO asserts that Superior Health has no employees and therefore the extent of Superior Health’s role, functions, and responsibilities within the areas of experience stated in the solicitation “is nil.” Id. IPRO then highlights unique aspects of its proposal, compares them to Superior Health’s proposal (arguing that Superior Health has no experience and that IPRO has 40 years of experience), and argues that CMS should have rated IPRO’s proposal as very good under the factor. Id.

It is a fundamental principle of government procurement that competitions must be conducted on an equal basis; that is, the contracting agency must evaluate proposals evenhandedly against common requirements and evaluation criteria. AccelGov, LLC, B‑422618.2, B‑422618.3, Aug. 30, 2024, 0224 CPD ¶ 208 at 6. To prevail on an allegation of disparate treatment, a protester must show that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal in a different manner than another proposal that was substantively indistinguishable or nearly identical. Id.

Here, IPRO fails to make the requisite showing to establish disparate treatment. AccelGov, LLC, supra. Rather than showing how the agency disparately evaluated similar aspects of the proposals, IPRO highlights the substantive differences in the competing proposals. See Comments at 19. To the extent IPRO is simply challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals as arbitrary, we find that IPRO fails to provide us with a basis to sustain the protest. In this regard, IPRO’s protest ground is essentially its own reevaluation of proposals. It has not cited any specific aspects of the agency’s evaluation and demonstrated how those aspects of the evaluation were somehow contrary to the terms of the solicitation or otherwise unreasonable. See Comments at 18-20. Accordingly, we deny the protest ground.

Best‑Value Tradeoff

IPRO alleges that CMS made an unreasonable best-value tradeoff decision because it relied on flawed underlying evaluations. Protest at 25; Comments at 20. As discussed above, we sustain the protest based on a procurement error committed under the QIO eligibility assessment which was not part of the best‑value tradeoff decision. We have reviewed IPRO’s challenges under the technical factor, the area of the solicitation relevant to the best‑value tradeoff and find no basis to disturb the agency’s evaluation conclusions. Therefore, we deny this challenge to the best-value tradeoff decision.

RECOMMENDATION

In conclusion, we sustain IPRO’s challenge to the evaluation of Superior Health’s proposal under the QIO eligibility assessment because the agency’s evaluation was insufficiently documented to allow our Office to review the reasonableness of its conclusions. The agency’s response to our request for additional briefing is likewise insufficient to fill the gaps in the record and indicates that aspects of the agency’s evaluation of the proposal were not documented. We deny the remaining challenges.

We recommend that the agency reevaluate proposals under the QIO eligibility assessment consistent with the terms of the solicitation and relevant procurement laws and regulations. The agency should adequately document the results of the reevaluation of proposals, to include documentation of the agency’s reasoning for any judgments made or conclusions reached. If Superior Health’s proposal is found to be unacceptable under the QIO eligibility assessment, we recommend the agency terminate Superior Health’s task order for the convenience of the government and make a new award decision, issuing the task order to the firm offering the proposal found to represent the best value, if otherwise proper.

We also recommend that IPRO be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys’ fees. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1). IPRO should submit its certified claims for costs directly to the agency within 60 days after receipt of this decision. Id. § 21.8(f)(1).

The protest is sustained.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

 

---