Octave Technologies Corporation

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release.

Decision

Matter of: Octave Technologies Corporation

File: B-424253; B-424253.4

Date: May 15, 2026

Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Michael J. Anstett, Esq., Robert C. Starling, Esq., and Morgan E. Kurst, Esq., Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, for the protester.
J. Ryan Frazee, Esq., and John. R. Prairie, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for Chags Health Information Technology LLC, the intervenor.
Brandon Dell'Aglio, Esq., and William Shim, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency.
Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Protest that agency misevaluated quotations and engaged in disparate treatment under competition for Federal Supply Schedule task order is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria and differences in evaluation treatment was the result of differences in the vendors' quotations.

2. Protest challenging agency's selection of the best-suited vendor and the subsequent conduct of exchanges only with that firm is denied where the record shows the best-suited vendor determination was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

Octave Technologies Corporation, of Baltimore, Maryland, a small business, protests the issuance of a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) task order to Chags Health Information Technology LLC, doing business as C-HIT, of Columbia, Maryland, also a small business, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. RFQ-CMS-2026-260007J, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for commercial services to support the agency's application programming interface (API) gateway. Octave argues that CMS misevaluated quotations, improperly held discussions only with C-HIT, and made an unreasonable source selection decision.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, issued on September 26, 2025, sought quotations from small businesses to provide support services for CMS's API gateway[1] under a hybrid firm-fixed-price/time and material task order for a base year and four option years. The RFQ provided that the competition would be conducted under the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.405 and the FSS. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2.4, RFQ app. C, Additional Information at 2. The task order would be issued to the vendor whose quotation provided the best value based on an evaluation of quotations under four factors: corporate experience (mission focused); performance work statement (PWS) and quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP); oral presentations; and cost.[2] AR, Tab 2.14, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 5, Evaluation Criteria at 2‑12.[3] The first three factors were of equal importance and all non-cost or price factors, when combined, were more important than cost or price. AR, Tab 2.4, RFQ app. C, Additional Information at 3.

The RFQ divided the competition into two phases. In phase 1, vendors provided quotations addressing only the corporate experience factor, which CMS would evaluate and inform the vendor of the agency's determination of whether the vendor should participate in the next phase.[4] In phase 2, vendors submitted quotations addressing the remaining factors, except for the oral presentations factor which was presented live.

The corporate experience (mission focused) factor evaluation would assess how well a vendor's previous experience demonstrates performance of work “similar to that envisioned by the Government in pursuit of the intent described in this solicitation.” AR, Tab 2.14, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 5, Additional Information at 4.

The RFQ provided a statement of objectives (SOO) identifying the general scope of the task order, nine objectives that included program management, operations and management, and application rationalization for a platform alternative. The SOO also identified required key personnel, deliverables, and government-furnished equipment and information. AR, Tab 2.19, RFQ amend. 3, SOO at 2-3. Under the PWS and QASP factor, vendors had to provide a PWS to meet the agency's objectives, along with a draft QASP for CMS to use in developing its own QASP to monitor the vendor's performance. AR, Tab 2.14, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 5, Evaluation Criteria at 5. CMS would evaluate the vendor's PWS and draft QASP to assess how they met the intent of the SOO, and, specifically, “how well the PWS demonstrates understanding of the Government's needs, and the extent to which the people, processes, performance measures and tools will serve to address the needs and challenges” of performance. Id. at 6.

For the oral presentation factor, the RFQ provided that all vendors would receive the same set of “core questions” at the beginning of the presentation. The vendor was instructed to present its answers to the questions and demonstrate its approach to the agency's requirement. Id. at 6. The oral presentation evaluation would assess the “capability and suitability of the [vendor] to perform the work required by the SOO,” and consider not only the content of the vendor's answers but also “the methods used by the team to deliver those answers.” Id. at 9.

Under the cost factor, vendors were instructed to submit a basis of estimate that described the estimating methodology the vendor used to develop its price and to complete a pricing spreadsheet. The cost factor evaluation would evaluate the quoted prices for the base period, option period(s), and the six-month extension to ensure they are fair and reasonable. Id. at 11.

Although the RFQ indicated that the agency was not obligated to hold exchanges with vendors, CMS reserved the right to conduct exchanges if the contracting officer determined that doing so was necessary and in the best interest of the government. AR, Tab 2.4, RFQ app. C, Additional Information at 2. If exchanges were held, the contracting officer could limit participation “to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among those responses most likely to be determined best value.” Id. at 3. However, after CMS had determined that one vendor's quotation was

the best value (i.e. the apparent successful respondent), the government reserves the right to communicate with only that respondent to address any remaining issues, if necessary, and finalize a task order. These issues may include technical and/or price matters.

Id.

CMS received phase 1 quotations from 27 vendors, including Octave and C-HIT. After evaluating the quotations, the agency advised all vendors except C-HIT that they should not continue to phase 2. In the communication sent to Octave, CMS advised that the phase 1 evaluation under the corporate experience (mission focused) factor had resulted in a rating of low confidence. Three vendors (Octave, C-HIT, and ID8Spark[5]) submitted phase 2 quotations and participated in oral presentations. Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 3.

A technical evaluation panel (TEP) prepared a narrative evaluation of each vendor's quotation under each evaluation factor. The evaluation of non-price factors assessed “[p]ositive finding[s]/observation[s],” which were individual aspects that increased confidence of successful performance, and “[n]egative findings/observation[s],” which were issues that decreased confidence. The evaluation also assigned adjectival ratings ranging from high confidence to some confidence, low confidence, or no confidence. Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 6.

With respect to C-HIT's corporate experience (mission focused) factor evaluation, the evaluation identified no negative factors and nine positives. Id. Under the PWS and QASP factor, the initial evaluation identified no negative findings for C-HIT but noted aspects that would require clarification. Id. at 12. Under the oral presentation factor, C‑HIT's presentation was assessed no negative findings and four positives. Id. at 10. The price evaluation found that C-HIT's initial quotation was consistent with its technical quotation, but a discrepancy in pricing for nine labor categories limited CMS's ability to evaluate its pricing, and the firm had quoted pricing for three labor categories that exceeded the firm's FSS contract pricing for the corresponding labor categories. Id. at 18.

The evaluation of Octave's quotation identified multiple concerns under each evaluation factor, the most significant of which are discussed below. After completing the evaluation of each vendor's initial phase 1 and phase 2 quotations, the contracting officer prepared a table of the adjectival ratings and total prices:

	Corporate Experience (Mission Focused)	PWS and QASP	Oral Presentation	Total Price
C-HIT	High Confidence	High Confidence	High Confidence	$33,660,332.37
ID8Spark	Some Confidence	Some Confidence	High Confidence	$19,999,699.27
Octave	Low Confidence	Some Confidence	Some Confidence	$25,865,988.92

Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 5.

The memorandum then recorded the contracting officer's determination: “[b]ased on the evaluation of the price and non-price factors described in this section, the [contracting officer] determined that C-HIT was the apparent best suited offeror” and referred to the remaining narrative for supporting explanation of the supporting evaluation judgments. Id. The agency then held an initial round of exchanges with C‑HIT and asked the firm to submit a revised quotation. After evaluating the revised quotation, CMS held a second round of discussions with C-HIT and received another revised quotation. Following those exchanges, the contracting officer prepared the award decision memorandum that reviewed the evaluation findings and determined that C-HIT's quotation provided the best value to the government. The contracting officer then selected C-HIT to be issued the task order.

CMS notified the unsuccessful vendors of C-HIT's selection and provided a brief explanation of the basis for the decision to both unsuccessful vendors. This protest followed.

DISCUSSION

Octave argues that CMS misevaluated both its and C-HIT's quotations and engaged in unequal treatment. We discuss below a selection of the protester's most significant arguments.[6] Beyond these contentions, Octave also argues that CMS improperly held exchanges with C-HIT before validly making a tradeoff judgment that C-HIT's quotation was the best value, so it was improper for CMS to conduct exchanges exclusively with the firm. Octave contends that the record does not document any tradeoff judgment using the evaluation of the competitors' initial quotations and prices. Instead, the firm argues that the record documents only a comparison of C-HIT's final revised quotation--after two rounds of revisions--to the other vendors' initial quotations. Even if the record had documented the required tradeoff, Octave argues that the tradeoff judgment was unreasonable because it was based on the alleged misevaluation. We turn first to Octave's challenges to the evaluation of quotations and then to the selection of C-HIT as the best suited vendor. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the evaluation of quotations was reasonable and consistent with the RFQ, and that CMS properly determined to hold exchanges with C-HIT and, after reviewing the firm's final revised quotation, to select it as the best-suited vendor.

Where a vendor challenges the evaluation of quotations in a competition under FAR 8.4, our Office will review the record to determine whether the agency's evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations. Neopost USA Inc., B-404195, B‑404195.2, Jan. 19, 2011, at 4. Where a protester challenges the evaluation of quotations in a competition under FAR Part 8.4, our Office will not limit our review of the agency's evaluation to the contemporaneous documentation, but instead will consider all the information provided, including the agency's protest arguments and explanations that provide a detailed rationale for a contemporaneous conclusion and simply fill in previously-unrecorded details and are credible and consistent with the contemporaneous record. Softrams, LLC; Chags Health Info. Tech., LLC, B-419927.4 et al., Feb. 7, 2022, at 7. While a procuring agency is required to have identified the significant evaluation factors and subfactors in the solicitation, it is not required to identify every aspect within a factor that could be evaluated and may include in the evaluation aspects that, although unstated, are reasonably related to or encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria. Millennium Space Sys., Inc., B-406771, Aug. 17, 2012, at 7. Further, where a protester challenges the evaluation of the quotations as reflecting disparate treatment, it must show that differences in the evaluations were not the result of differences in the vendors' approaches. That is, a protest alleging disparate treatment must show that the evaluation of the protester's quotation differed from the awardee's but the relevant approaches in their quotations were substantively indistinguishable or nearly identical. SOS Int'l, LLC, B-422323, Apr. 24, 2024, at 7.

Corporate Experience (Mission Focused) Evaluation

Octave contends that CMS misevaluated its quotation under the corporate experience (mission focused) factor. In addition to three positive findings, the agency assessed three negative findings based on the firm's misrepresentations of the corporate experience of its contractor teaming arrangement (CTA) partner; Octave's lack of experience providing [DELETED] on similar work, particularly in [DELETED]; and Octave's use of the [DELETED] in what the evaluation labeled a “[DELETED].” AR, Tab 3.7, TEP Phase 1 Evaluation of Octave at 6-9.

Octave argues that the assessment of a negative finding for inaccuracies in the experience of its CTA partner was improper because the agency's criticisms amount to judgments about the quality of the partner's performance, rather than its experience. Protest at 13. The firm contends that doing so amounts to the application of unstated evaluation criteria. Id.; Comments & Supp. Protest at 18.

The RFQ provided that the evaluation under the corporate experience (mission focused) factor would include assessing how well the vendor's experience showed that it had performed “work similar to that envisioned by the Government” and could include specific elements of performance and “anything else the Government considers relevant within this context.” AR, Tab 2.14, RFQ amend. 2, attach. 5, Evaluation Criteria at 4. The evaluation criteria also directed vendors to “describe how the experience aligns to the Government's intent including the objectives of the Statement of Objectives . . . and the work envisioned under the PWS.” Id.

CMS argues that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the corporate experience (mission focused) evaluation criteria. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 13. In particular, the agency argues that the negative evaluation was not based on criticism of the CTA member's performance, but on the fact that aspects of the experience that Octave and its CTA partner had submitted to show relevant experience were inaccurate. Based on the personal knowledge of one of the TEP members, who had a role in overseeing the contract at issue, the agency found that statements in Octave's quotation regarding the number of full-time equivalents (FTE) and the number of successful contract deliveries were inaccurate; that is, the firm's performance had involved fewer FTEs, fewer deliveries, and one delivery had missed a critical date. Id. at 13-14.

Our review of the record shows that CMS had a reasonable basis to assess this negative finding. The evaluation focused on elements that Octave and its CTA partner elected to include in the quotation to demonstrate experience needed to meet the contract objectives, specifically information about the maximum level of FTEs and the firm's success in meeting contract deliverables. Consistent with the evaluation criteria, the evaluators reviewed Octave's experience to assess the extent to which it was aligned with the agency's goals and objectives under the RFQ. The record shows that in doing so, the agency's evaluation reasonably considered that the aspects of Octave's partner's experience, which it listed in the quotation to show that very experience, were not accurate. A TEP member who had a significant role in overseeing the firm's experience confirms that the work involved only approximately [DELETED] FTEs, rather than [DELETED] FTE's as the claimed in the quotation,[7] and stated it had made [DELETED] successful deliveries whereas only [DELETED] had occurred and, of those, the firm had experienced “[DELETED]. AR, Tab 3.7, TEP Phase 1 Evaluation of Octave at 6; MOL at 28-29. Octave has provided no basis to question CMS's evaluation judgment.[8]

PWS and QASP Evaluation

Octave challenges five issues that were the basis for negative findings under the PWS and QASP factor. Our review of the record provides no basis to question the evaluation under this factor. Of its challenges, Octave focuses on the assessment of a “critical negative finding” regarding its proposal of a specific gateway alternative and alleged unreasonable evaluation and disparate treatment regarding the same issue in the agency's evaluation of C-HIT's quotation. Comments & Supp. Protest at 10-11, 28. Our discussion of these issues serves as an example of the firm's arguments.

First, as background, as noted above, one of the SOO objectives was application rationalization--platform alternative. For that objective, the SOO explained that the agency's existing API gateway faced increasing demands for application development. CMS needed the vendor to provide application rationalization[9], specifically in regard to the existing platform (identified as “Salesforce: MuleSoft Anypoint”), to analyze whether it would provide a good technical fit and a rational total cost of ownership. AR, Tab 2.19, RFQ amend. 2, SOO at 20. Accordingly, one of the agency's SOO objectives was for the vendor to “propose a platform alternative, preferably the technology suit[e]s available within CMS [content management system] AWS [Amazon Web Services] Cloud services, i.e., AWS solution components,” and for the vendor to outline a technical approach for transition to and further development of that solution while preserving the agency's business operations and minimizing downtime. Id.

In its protest, Octave challenges as unreasonable the assessment of a negative finding under the PWS and QASP factor because Octave's quotation proposed implementing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) alternative gateway platform called [DELETED]. Octave argues that CMS unreasonably criticized this aspect of the firm's quotation on the basis that the proposed alternative was a COTS solution, even though the RFQ did not restrict vendors from proposing a COTS gateway solution or indicate that proposing a COTS solution would be disfavored. Protest at 17. Octave also argues that the record demonstrates disparate evaluation treatment regarding this issue because C-HIT failed to propose [DELETED] gateway alternative (which Octave argues the RFQ required) and because C-HIT instead proposed to [DELETED] and identified [DELETED] that would be part of that analysis, one of which was [DELETED]. Octave argues that the record demonstrates an unreasonable evaluation and disparate treatment when CMS failed to downgrade or reject C-HIT for its failure to propose [DELETED], and instead assessed a positive for C-HIT's approach even though it included as [DELETED] assessed a negative in evaluating Octave's quotation. Comments & Supp. Protest at 10-11.

CMS argues that the evaluation of both vendor's quotations under the PWS and QASP factor was reasonable and consistent with the RFQ criteria, and that the difference in the evaluation of Octave and C-HIT results from material differences in their quotations regarding the issue. MOL at 17; Supp. MOL at 7-8. With respect to the negative assessed for Octave's proposal to implement [DELETED] as the platform alternative, CMS argues that the SOO objective informed vendor's that the agency's objective included “maximizing the use of technologies available within the CMS AWS cloud environment” and thereby indicated a preference for leveraging solutions within the existing infrastructure over implementing a new COTS product. MOL at 17. The evaluation was reasonable, CMS argues, because Octave's quotation proposed an approach using a COTS solution that did not fulfill the agency's stated objective.

With respect to the alleged misevaluation of C-HIT's quotation and disparate treatment, CMS argues that the evaluation of a positive for C-HIT's quotation reasonably reflected the firm's use of a [DELETED] to assess and select a platform alternative. Supp. MOL at 8. The use of the [DELETED] was a positive aspect of C-HIT's approach and was reasonably evaluated, CMS contends. Id. Further, the agency argues that the difference in the evaluation of the vendors' quotations was due to the very same difference between the quotations that Octave identified. Id. Rather than unequal treatment, the agency argues it reasonably evaluated materially different approaches to the application rationalization--platform alternative objective. Id.

Our review of the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and did not reflect disparate treatment. The SOO adequately informed vendors that the agency's objective for application rationalization regarding an API gateway alternative platform included a preference for an alternative that was “available within CMS AWS Cloud services, i.e., AWS solution components.” AR, Tab 2.19, RFQ amend. 2, SOO at 20. The agency reasonably assessed a negative finding for Octave's approach that did not meet this aspect of the objective by proposing a COTS solution.

The record also does not support Octave's arguments that the evaluation of C-HIT's quotation in this respect was unreasonable or reflected unequal treatment. Contrary to the foundation of Octave's claim, a reasonable reading of the RFQ did not require vendors to select and identify an alternative platform in their quotations. Rather, the SOO states as an objective that the vendor was to provide application rationalization that would result in proposing a platform alternative. Id. The evaluation of a strength for C-HIT's approach because it identified a valuable process for performing that analysis was thus reasonable. Additionally, unlike Octave's quotation, which stated that it had “[b]efore award . . . already [DELETED],” C-HIT proposed a process of analysis and decisionmaking in which [DELETED] to be assessed. Compare AR, Tab 6.2, Octave Phase 2 Quotation at 5 with Supp. AR, Tab 5.2, C-HIT Phase 2 Quotation at 29. That difference in the quotations undermines Octave's argument that the record reflects disparate evaluation treatment. SOS Int'l, LLC, supra, at 7.

Oral Presentation Evaluation

Octave argues that CMS misevaluated the firm's oral presentation by unreasonably assessing multiple negative findings. Protest at 24-26. Of these, Octave argues that the most significant was the assessment of a negative factor because Octave's oral presentation included utilizing a technique of “[DELETED],” which is a technique that [DELETED]. Comments & Supp. Protest at 37-38. Contrary to the evaluation of a negative finding, Octave contends that the SOO expressly provided for the use of [DELETED]. Id. at 37. The firm contends that it was unreasonable for CMS to assess a negative to Octave's inclusion of that technique in the oral presentation, because [DELETED] was provided for in the SOO. Id.

In response, CMS explains that the negative finding was not due simply to the firm's discussion of [DELETED] as a technique, but because of how Octave proposed to implement and rely upon it. MOL at 22. The agency argues that the SOO recognizes the need for [DELETED] in some circumstances, but not as a primary strategy and, further, the SOO differentiates between [DELETED] and the agency's competing goal of managing user needs and system performance. In contrast, the agency argues that Octave's oral presentation indicated that the firm's approach involved over-reliance on and misapplication of [DELETED], which would impair the agency's goal of robust, scalable data access. MOL at 22-23; COS at 12.

Our review of the record provides no basis to question the agency's evaluation judgment regarding the approach to [DELETED] discussed by Octave in its oral presentation. As the oral presentations were not recorded, the agency's documentation of the presentation consists of its narrative explanation of the positive and negative findings that arose during the presentation. Those show that the evaluation of a negative finding for [DELETED] was based on Octave's presentation responses that identified [DELETED] as a technique to mitigate performance issues resulting from increased traffic (that is, activity) on the agency's systems. AR, Tab 3.9, TEP Oral Presentation Report for Octave at 8. The record shows that the agency reasonably concluded that Octave's approach did not provide a solution to the performance challenge but instead seemed to broadly adopt [DELETED] in a way that would “undermine the program's core mission of expanding data access to stakeholders.” Id. The record thus shows that the agency made a reasonable distinction between the SOO acknowledgement of [DELETED] as one of the available tools, and Octave's oral presentation response which indicated a harmful overreliance on it. As a result, the record shows that CMS's assessment of the negative finding, and the evaluation of Octave's quotation under the oral presentation factor was reasonable.

Cost Factor Evaluation

Under the cost factor evaluation, Octave argues that CMS unreasonably identified “concerns” with the firm's quotation under the cost factor because it did not show clearly that Octave's direct labor costs were consistent with the requirements of the limitation on subcontracting clause in FAR 52.219-14, concern over Octave's inclusion of the cost of [DELETED] software (which, as discussed above, the evaluators viewed as unsatisfactory) in the firm's proposed other direct costs, and concern over whether the firm's technical approach and pricing were consistent, which Octave argues were effectively an improper price realism assessment. Protest at 26-28.

CMS argues that its concerns were justified based on Octave's cost proposal and were consistent with the terms of the RFQ. The agency also appears to argue that the concerns regarding Octave's quotation were merely concerns but did not constitute negative findings under the evaluation criteria, and none influenced the agency's selection of C-HIT as the best suited vendor, and subsequently, as the task order recipient. MOL at 24; COS at 12.

Competitive prejudice is an essential element of a viable protest. To demonstrate prejudice, a protester must show that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Where the record does not show that the protester has been prejudiced by alleged errors in the evaluation, our Office will not sustain the protest. JHC Tech., Inc., B-417786, Oct. 23, 2019, at 6. Our review confirms that, even if the agency's concerns and critiques of Octave's pricing under the cost factor were unfounded or unreasonable, none of them were assessed to be a negative finding. While the contracting officer's award decision memorandum identifies the concerns, none had any evident role in the contracting officer's determination that C-HIT was the best suited vendor and, following exchanges with C-HIT, the agency's decision to issue the task order to C-HIT. See Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 19-20. As a result, we do not further consider these allegations.

Best-Suited Offeror Determination

Finally, Octave argues that CMS improperly held exchanges with C-HIT without making a valid tradeoff judgment that C-HIT's quotation was the best value, and therefore it was improper for CMS to conduct exchanges exclusively with the firm. Octave contends that the record does not document a valid tradeoff judgment using C-HIT's initial quotation and price, and documents only a selection based on C-HIT's final revised quotation following two rounds of exchanges. Comments & Supp. Protest at 5-9.

CMS counters that it properly evaluated the quotations and that the contracting officer made a reasonable determination that C-HIT's initial quotation was the best suited and, therefore, was the best value, before initiating exchanges with C-HIT. Supp. AR, Tab 1.2, Supp. COS at 1-2. Based on that determination, CMS argues that the exchanges the agency conducted with C-HIT were both proper and consistent with the RFQ. Supp. MOL at 4.

We have viewed the selection of a best-suited vendor as being, in effect, a technique to establish a competitive range of one vendor. Under that construction, our review has recognized that a contracting agency's evaluation of proposals and the establishment of a competitive range are matters within the agency's discretion. Therefore, our Office's review of challenges to both the evaluation and that competitive range determination examines the evaluation and determination to ensure that they were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations. Alliant Health Sols., Inc., B-423598, B-423598.2, Sept. 12, 2025, at 24. Where an agency has reasonably and fairly evaluated vendors' quotations, the agency's decision to conduct exchanges with only the “best-suited” vendor does not amount to unfair and inequitable treatment of vendors. S2 Analytical Sols., LLC, B-422281.3, Dec. 20, 2024, at 6 (under FAR subpart 8.4, the process of selecting a best suited vendor and subsequently holding exchanges or discussions with only that vendor is a permissible solicitation term).

CMS argues that the contracting officer's award decision memorandum, which documented the final source selection, also adequately documents a reasonable judgment that C-HIT's quotation was the best suited vendor for purposes of holding exchanges only with it as permitted by the RFQ. The agency noted that C-HIT had received the highest ratings under each of the non-price factors, and the record documents the contracting officer's judgment that C-HIT was best suited for award. MOL at 12; Supp. MOL at 5.

Based on our review of the record, the contracting officer's judgment that the evaluation of C-HIT's quotation made it the best suited vendor was reasonable. The record shows that the contracting officer recognized the evaluation of C-HIT's initial quotation reflected high confidence under all non-price factors and identified more positive and no negative findings, making it superior to Octave's quotation, which as discussed above, was reasonably evaluation as having multiple critical negative findings. Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 6-17. In areas where CMS identified issues that could be addressed through exchanges, the agency reasonably concluded that the issues did not amount to an unacceptable approach or pricing, and that exchanges could therefore resolve each of the issues.

The record also documents the contracting officer's reasonable consideration of both vendors' initial quotation pricing, which recognized that C‑HIT's was higher than Octave's but lower than the government estimate, and determined that C-HIT's higher price constituted a moderate premium over Octave's.[10] Supp AR, Tab 4.2, Award Decision Memorandum at 32. The contracting officer's award decision memorandum reflects both the judgment that the superiority of C-HIT's non-price quotation justified its higher price, making it the best suited vendor and, ultimately, the judgment that C-HIT's quotation provided the best value. These judgments were reasonable, consistent with the RFQ, and based on reasonable evaluation of the quotations. Accordingly, we deny this allegation.

The protest is denied.

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
General Counsel

---