Alliant Health Solutions, Inc. (B-423598, B-423598.2)

You should care.

Categories: Unequal discussions, OCI, professional compensation, cost realism, competitive range

Date: 12 September 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-423598%2Cb-423598.2)

Alliant protested CMS’s Region 3 Quality Improvement Network, Quality Improvement Organization (QIN‑QIO), task order award to Health Quality Innovators (HQI), challenging everything from a climate‑change requirement tweak to organizational conflicts of interest, professional compensation, cost realism, and the competitive‑range decision.

Climate‑change requirement removed only for HQI: During BSO‑only exchanges, CMS revised the SOW to delete duties tied to “climate change” and let HQI adjust its proposal without amending the TORP for all offerors. GAO agreed this approach conflicted with fair‑opportunity principles in FAR 16.505 but found no competitive prejudice: neither offeror received strengths tied to climate‑change work, and CMS’s post hoc cost analysis showed the removed work represented a tiny share of each offeror’s total cost—far short of the roughly $33 million delta between Alliant and HQI.

Impaired‑objectivity OCI allegation fails: Alliant argued HQI should be disqualified because a board member also works for a major long‑term‑care trade association. CMS investigated and reasonably concluded the board member’s role for a diffuse trade group, combined with the QIN‑QIO contractor’s “customer‑service” implementation role (distinct from CMS’s separate program monitoring and evaluation contractor), did not create a conflicting financial interest or give HQI the ability to favor specific providers.

Professional compensation and cost realism: Applying FAR 52.222‑46, CMS evaluated HQI’s salaries and fringe benefits against prior actual rates and GSA labor benchmarks, concluding the plan would support recruitment and retention. For cost realism, most labor rates reflected incumbent salaries; remaining rates and subcontractor pricing were close to benchmarks and consistent with negotiated terms. GAO found no basis to question CMS’s adjustments or its overall realism conclusions.

Competitive‑range and tradeoff: Although some internal documents misstated ratings, the contracting officer looked past labels and qualitatively compared strengths and weaknesses. HQI’s technical proposal was at least comparable overall and offered a roughly $33 million cost advantage, so CMS reasonably determined Alliant’s higher‑cost proposal did not justify the premium.

Digest

Alliant Health Solutions, Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, protests the award of a task order to Health Quality Innovitors (HQI)… for the agency's Region 3, Quality Improvement Network-Quality Improvement Organization (“QIN-QIO”) program. Alliant contends that CMS misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable selection decision.