United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision

Matter of: R&D Computer Systems, LLC 

File: B-407737

Date: January 23, 2013

Richard McGinnis for the protester.

Christine Simpson, Esq., Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of an agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s past performance is denied 

where record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the 

terms of the solicitation.

DECISION

R&D Computer Systems, LLC, of Shawnee, Kansas, protests the issuance of a 

purchase order to CitiesDigital, Inc., of Hudson, Wisconsin, by the Department of 

Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 

under request for quotations (RFQ) No. OIS-393-2012-0269-RAW for 

LaserFicheCompulink software support services. The protester challenges the 

agency’s evaluation of CitiesDigital’s past performance.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The RFQ, which was issued as a combined synopsis/solicitation on the FedBizOpps 

website, was set aside for small businesses. The RFQ provided for the issuance of 

a purchase order to an authorized LaserFiche dealer for software support services 

in 10 CMS regional offices.1

 

1 LaserFiche is a proprietary, commercial-off-the-shelf software product that is used 

in CMS’s regional offices. Statement of Work at 2.

 See Statement of Work at 2. Vendors were informed 
Page 2 B-407737 

that the order would be issued on a best value basis considering the following 

factors: technical understanding and approach; personnel qualifications; past 

performance; management plan; and price.

R&D and CitiesDigital (the incumbent) submitted quotations in response to the 

RFQ, which were evaluated by an information technology (IT) specialist in the 

agency’s New York Regional Office. Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, Decl. of IT 

Specialist, at 1. CitiesDigital’s $61,848 quotation was considered to be slightly 

superior to R&D’s higher-priced $63,931 quotation. Id. As relevant here, HHS 

evaluated CitiesDigital’s past performance as excellent. AR, Tab 6, Technical 

Evaluation/Award Recommendation, at 1. The purchase order was issued to 

CitiesDigital, and this protest followed.

DISCUSSION

The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of CitiesDigital’s past 

performance, arguing that CitiesDigital’s performance of the prior purchase order 

was not acceptable. Specifically, the protester contends that CitiesDigital did not 

provide onsite installation and training in the regions as was required. 

The agency responds that its evaluation of CitiesDigital’s past performance was 

based upon the personal knowledge of the technical evaluator, who was 

responsible for the annual procurement of services supporting the LaserFiche 

software in all regional offices. AR, Tab 8, Decl. of IT Specialist, at 1. The 

evaluator states that under the prior order CitiesDigital provided excellent technical 

support. Id. With respect to CitiesDigital not performing onsite installation and 

training, the evaluator states that, during performance of the previous order, it was 

his decision to allow CitiesDigital to perform the installation and training remotely. 

Id. at 2. He states that CitiesDigital successfully performed these requirements with 

“great expertise and flexibility that allowed CMS to successfully complete the major 

goal of the [Statement of Work] to implement electronic records management while 

not disrupting other technical and program work scheduled throughout the [regional 

offices] during that timeframe. . . .” Id. The evaluator also states that he advised 

the regional offices that they could request onsite training and that in fact the 

Chicago regional office requested and received onsite training by CitiesDigital. Id.

In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s past performance evaluation, we will 

examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable 

and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and 

regulations. Ostrom Painting & Sandblasting, Inc., B-285244, July 18, 2000, 2000 

CPD ¶ 132 at 4. A protester’s mere disagreement with the agency’s evaluation 

provides no basis to question the reasonableness of the evaluator’s judgments. 

See Citywide Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, 

B-281287.13, Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD ¶ 6 at 10-11. 
Page 3 B-407737 

Here, the record shows that the agency’s evaluation of CitiesDigital’s past 

performance was reasonable. That is, the agency’s judgment was based upon its 

own experience with CitiesDigital’s performance of the prior order, which the agency 

found to be excellent. In this regard, the protester does not argue that CitiesDigital 

performed poorly under the prior order. Rather, R&D’s complaint is that the agency 

modified the prior order to allow CitiesDigital to perform installation and training 

remotely at some of the regional offices. See Rebuttal Comments at 2. This does 

not show, however, that the agency unreasonably found CitiesDigital’s performance 

of the order, as modified, to be excellent. To the extent the protester is complaining 

that CMS modified CitiesDigital’s prior order, this concern involves a matter of 

contract administration over which we generally do not exercise bid protest 

jurisdiction; issues of contract administration are within the discretion of the 

contracting agency. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.5(a) (2012).

The protest is denied.2

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel

 

2 The protester also argues that had it known that onsite training was not required;

its quotation would have been more competitive. Comments at 1. There is no merit 

to this contention, however. The RFQ required vendors to provide their price for 

providing onsite training and installation for each regional office, and the record 

shows that CitiesDigital’s quotation did so. AR, Tab 3, CitiesDigital’s Quotation, 

at 8.