Bosko | Shutterstock

Protest challenging solicitation’s terms is denied. The protester essentially alleged that the solicitation’s corporate experience criteria were too loose and would allow ill-equipped offerors to be considered for award. GAO disagreed, noting that an agency has discretion to define the relevance of offerors’ performance experience. The protester had not established that the solicitation’s corporate experience provision violated a procurement statute or regulation. Rather, GAO found that the protest was an attempt to limit the agency’s consideration of other less experienced offerors.

The Department of Health and Human Services issued a request for task order proposals to companies holding an IDIQ contract under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Strategic Partner Acquisition Readiness Program. The solicitation sought support for a federally facilitated exchange. The solicitation required offeror to provide information regarding corporate experience. Offerors had to demonstrate they had performed contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity.

The incumbent, Accenture Federal Services, filed a protest challenging the terms of the solicitation. Accenture objected to language in the solicitation that allowed the agency to consider experience with another system to be of similar size even if that system did not process the same number of transactions or serve a similar number of users. Accenture complained that this language would allow the agency to consider an offeror’s experience with a state-based exchanges with significantly lower volumes than federal exchanges.

GAO viewed Accenture’s complaints as essentially an argument that the solicitation should have been more restrictive of competition. But an agency has discretion to define its needs and this extends to matters involving the relevance of offerors’ performance history. An agency may reasonably provide for an evaluation that foster competition by increasing the feasibility of proposals submitted by non-incumbent offerors. Accenture had not identified any statutes or regulations that establish parameters for determining the relevance of an offeror’s experience.

Indeed, it was not lost on GAO that Accenture’s protest repeatedly referenced its own unique experience performing the incumbent contract. It appeared to GAO that Accenture was attempting to limit the agency’s meaningful consideration of offerors that appeared to be no less experienced than Accenture was when it was first awarded the incumbent contract.

Moreover, GAO found that Accenture had not been prejudiced by the corporate experience provisions. A prospective offeror is not an interested party to challenge solicitation terms where the protester meets the challenged requirements. Here, there was no question that Accenture was capable of complying with the solicitation.

Accenture is represented by Amy Laderberg O’Sullivan, Anuj Vohra, Olivia L. Lynch, William B. O’Reilly, and Zachary H. Schroeder of Crowell & Moring LLP. The agency is represented by Roby A. Littman and Lucy G. MacGabhann of the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Glenn G. Wolcott and Christina Sklarew participated in the preparation of the decision.