A Square Group, LLC (B-421792.5)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, process issue, discussions

Date: 11 April 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-421792.5

A Square Group, LLC (ASG), protested HHS’s issuance of a task order to Cogent People, Inc., under RFQ No. 230314 for operational analytics services supporting the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. ASG challenged the evaluation of Cogent’s quotation, the best suited vendor determination, and the agency’s conduct of exchanges limited to Cogent. This protest followed a prolonged series of earlier protests and corrective actions, including GAO sustaining a prior OCI-related protest. Here, GAO found that CMS reasonably reaffirmed Cogent’s selection following additional corrective action and an organizational conflict of interest waiver, and that its limited exchanges with only the best-suited vendor complied with the solicitation’s terms.

After ASG’s earlier protest was sustained in June 2024, CMS reassessed quotations and reaffirmed Cogent as the best-suited vendor despite minor inconsistencies between Cogent’s mitigation plan and technical approach. CMS conducted targeted exchanges with Cogent to address organizational conflicts and confirmed staffing changes without reopening the competition to ASG. ASG argued that CMS improperly favored Cogent and should have solicited revised quotations from all offerors. GAO disagreed, finding the agency’s actions consistent with the RFQ’s best-suited vendor communication clause and procurement regulations.

• Technical evaluation and best-suited vendor determination: GAO found CMS reasonably concluded that Cogent’s lower price outweighed ASG’s slight technical superiority.
• Conduct of exchanges: GAO upheld CMS’s decision to conduct exchanges only with Cogent, consistent with the RFQ, even after multiple corrective actions.

Protest denied. CMS's reaffirmation of Cogent’s award and limited exchanges were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation.

Digest

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s quotation and selection of the awardee as the best-suited vendor is denied where the evaluation and best-suited vendor determination were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. Protest alleging exchanges conducted solely with the awardee were unreasonable and unfair is denied where the exchanges were conducted in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.