STGi Protest 2026_04_27 (eRFQ 48800_VET000000.pdf

STATE OF GEORGIA

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

In the Matter of:

STG INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Protestor, v.

DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE

SERVICES,

Agency.

DOAS FILE NO.

eRFQ No. 48800-VET0000006

PROTEST

Pursuant to Rule 6.5 of the Georgia Procurement Manual (2026) ("GPM"), STG International, Inc. ("STGi" or "Protestor") hereby protests the Georgia Department of Veterans Service Notice of Intent to Award ("NOIA") the Georgia War Veterans Home Management and Operation contract solicited under electronic Request for Proposals No. 48800-VET0000006 (the "Solicitation" or "RFP"), as follows:

Protestor: STG International, Inc.

Representatives: Jennifer K. Coalson Krevolin & Horst, LLC One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street, NW Suite 3500 Atlanta, Georgia 30309

(404) 474-2896 coalson@khlawfirm.com

Craig A. Holman (not admitted in Georgia) Stuart W. Turner (not admitted in Georgia) Maura B. Naehr (not admitted in Georgia) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 942-5000 craig.holman@arnoldporter.com stuart.turner@arnoldporoter.com maura.naehr@arnoldporter.com

State Entity: Georgia Department of Veterans Service (the "GDVS" or "Agency" or "State Entity")

Event: eRFP No. 48800-VET0000006 (Georgia War Veterans Home Management and Operation), Notice of Intent to Award to Health Management Resources Governmental Service, LLC

Standing: STGi, having submitted a competitive proposal in response to the RFP, qualifies as an "interested supplier" within the meaning of Rule 6.5 of the Georgia Procurement Manual because STGi is an actual bidder or offeror with a direct economic interest in the procurement. As the second-place finisher by final score, STGi has a substantial chance of receiving the contract award should the Department of Administrative Services ("DOAS") sustain this protest.

Protest Summary: DOAS should rescind the April 17, 2026 NOIA announcing Health Management Resources Governmental Services LLC ("HMR") as the apparent successful offeror due to significant and material errors in the evaluation of the respective bidders' proposals, omissions in the evaluation record, and material omissions from the HMR proposal.

Requested Relief: STGi seeks: (1) an immediate stay of the procurement pending resolution of this protest; (2) a declaration sustaining this protest; (3) rescission of the NOIA to HMR; (4) rejection of HMR's bid as non-responsive or re-evaluation of the STGi and HMR bids in accordance with the eRFP and a new, proper award decision; (5) issuance of a new NOIA in favor of the rightful awardee under the eRFP; and (6) such other and further relief as may be necessary or appropriate.

Timeliness: STGi timely files this protest on April 27, 2026, within ten calendar days of the State posting the April 17, 2026 NOIA.

INTRODUCTION, FACTUAL BACKGROUND, AND GROUNDS FOR PROTEST

I. Introduction

The GDVS operates the Georgia War Veteran's Home ("GWVH"), a 262-bed residential facility in Milledgeville, Georgia providing residential care for Georgia Veterans. (Ex. A, eRFP, Att. B, Scope of Work at 1-2.) In 2023, STGi took over operation of the GDVH for a previously failing operator. STGi has in the past two years restored this critical resource for Georgia Veterans to compliant, safe operation. The RFP seeks a contractor to operate the GWVH for the current fiscal year, with four options to renew for successive one-year terms.. (Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 3 ("The initial term of the contract(s) shall be from the date of award until the end of the State's current fiscal year. The State's fiscal year is from July 1st through June 30th. The State Entity shall possess 4 one (1) year option(s) to renew, which options shall be exercisable at the sole discretion of the State Entity.")) The protest challenges the NOIA issued to HMR under the RFP for several independent, prejudicial reasons.

First, HMR submitted a materially noncompliant, misleading proposal for at least two reasons. HMR submitted a materially false response in its mandatory "Supplier Responsibility Questionnaire," failing to disclose that the State of Maryland had terminated a HMR contract for default within the past five years. The State of Maryland terminated HMR in 2023 for multiple serious management failures at the Charlotte Hall Veterans Home in St. Mary's County, Maryland.

HMR also failed to submit required inspection reports for thirteen of its fifteen managed Veterans Homes. The withheld reports reveal multiple Immediate Jeopardy findings arising from HMR's operation of these facilities. HMR's failure to comply with the Solicitation's disclosure requirements render the HMR proposal unacceptable and require HMR's exclusion from this competition.

Second, the State based its contract award to HMR on HMR's evaluated advantage in the "Validated" technical score. HMR and STGi proposed similar prices, and both received the same "Cost Score" calculated in accordance with the Solicitation. During the initial evaluation, three of four evaluators scored the STGi proposal quite highly. The fourth evaluator, however, scored STGi much lower, without basis or explanation. After the evaluators met, the evaluators who had scored STGi quite well, dropped many of STGI's ratings substantially without any explanation.

The failure of the evaluators to document multiple significant alterations in the scoring during the validation process undermine the purported difference between the offerors' technical scores.

Regardless, the "Validated" technical scores contain unreasonable conclusions regarding the offerors' proposals, apply disparate standards to STGi and HMR, and otherwise violate the Solicitation or Georgia procurement law.

DOAS should sustain this protest and: (i) direct the GDVS to rescind the NOIA to HMR;

and (ii) direct the GDVS to remove HMR from the competition for making a material misrepresentation and submitting a materially incomplete proposal and award the contract to STGi; or, at a minimum, (iii) direct the GDVS to reopen the competition, allow the offerors to submit revised proposals, re-evaluate the proposals in accordance with the Solicitation, and make a new, proper award decision.

II. Factual Background

a. eRFP and Corresponding Procurement Documents

The GDVS issued eRFP No. 48800-VET0000006 for services in support of the GWVH and operation. (Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 1.) The Agency requested offerors to submit competitive sealed proposals in response to this eRFP. (Id.) The GDVS sourced the eRFP through an electronic sourcing tool approved by DOAS. (Id.)

The eRFP Scope of Work provides: "The GWVH, like other state veterans' homes that receive per diem payments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), provides skilled nursing services and treatment to eligible veterans." (Ex. A, eRFP, Att. B, Scope of Work at 1.)

The Scope of Services indicates that "[t]he supplier/contractor shall have the responsibility, and commensurate authority to manage and supervise the day-to-day operations of the Home, including the provision . . . management, consulting, and advisory services to the Department."

(Id. at 2.) Specifically, the Scope of Services directs "[t]he supplier/contractor shall manage the Home with the intent that each veteran patient receives the necessary services to address medical, psychiatric, nursing, dental, rehabilitative, and mental health needs, thereby maintaining or improving their levels of functioning" as required by State and Federal regulations and guidelines, and CFR 38 part 51. (Id. at 7.)

The Agency eRFP details the "best value" evaluation review process in connection with this procurement as follows:

The objective of the evaluation process is to identify the proposal which represents the best value to the State Entity based on a combination of technical and cost factors. Based on the results of the initial evaluation, the State Entity may or may not elect to negotiate technical and/or cost factors as further described in the eRFP.

In the event negotiations of the technical and/or cost factors occur, the revised proposals will be reevaluated in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.4 "Scoring Criteria" of this eRFP. Once the evaluation process has been completed (and any negotiations the State Entity desires to conduct have occurred), the apparent successful supplier(s) will be required to enter into discussions with the State Entity to resolve any exceptions to the State Entity's contract. The State Entity will announce the results of the eRFP.

(Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 15.) The eRFP describes the evaluation criteria as consisting of three parts for those proposals the Agency deems responsive—(1) Cost (worth 200 points); (2) a Technical/Proposal Factor consisting of a response to a "'Mandatory Requirements" response sheet (made up of a pass/fail requirement); and (3) a Technical/Proposal Factor consisting of a response to a "'Mandatory Scored' Requirements" response sheet (worth 800 points). (See id. at 16.) The eRFP contains the following demonstrative in connection with the evaluation:

Category Criteria Points Cost 1. Cost of proposed products and/or services 200 points

Technical/Proposal Factors

2. "Mandatory" Requirements

Pass/Fail

Technical/Proposal Factors

3. "Mandatory Scored" and/or "Additional Scored" Responses

800 points

Total N/A 1000 points

(Id.) The eRFP further specifies that, in terms of cost:

The State Entity may utilize lowest cost, lowest total cost, and total cost of ownership (TCO) or greatest savings to determine the most competitive cost proposal. The cost proposal may be scored on an overall basis or at the category/subcategory/line level (as applicable) relative to other proposals. The supplier deemed to have the most competitive cost proposal overall, as determined by the State Entity, will receive the maximum weighted score for the cost criteria.

In the alternative, in the event the cost proposal is scored at the category, subcategory or line level, the State Entity may assign the maximum score per category/subcategory/line for the most competitive proposal at that level. Other proposals will receive a percentage of the weighted score based on the percentage differential between the most competitive cost proposal and the specific proposal in question.

(Id. at 16.) The eRFP includes at Attachment E a Cost Worksheet the offerors much complete.

(Ex. C, eRFP, Att. E, Cost Worksheet.) The Cost Worksheet requires offerors to provide annual costs for twenty-two items. (Id.).

In connection with the Technical/Proposal Factor, the eRFP requires offerors to complete a "Mandatory Requirements" response sheet addressing certain pass/fail questions:

[T]he supplier must indicate whether its proposal meets the individual requirements by marking either a "YES" or "NO" in the response block provided. A Pass/Fail evaluation will be utilized for all mandatory requirements. Ordinarily, to be considered responsive, responsible and eligible for award, all questions identified as mandatory must be marked "YES" to pass.

(Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 13.) The eRFP includes the "Mandatory Requirements" response sheet at Attachment C. (Ex. D, eRFP, Att. C, Mandatory Requirements.)

The Technical/Proposal Factor also requires offerors to respond to a "Mandatory Scored Response" response sheet:

To be considered responsive, responsible and eligible for award, any and all requirements identified in the Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet must be met.

. . . All requirements labeled "Mandatory Scored" must be met by the supplier.

Failure to meet any mandatory scored requirements may result in disqualification of the proposals. The narrative description, along with any required supporting materials, will be evaluated and awarded points.

(See Ex. E, eRFP Att. D, Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet at 13-14.) The eRFP includes the Mandatory Scored Requirements sheet and its twenty-six substantive questions for the offeror to complete at Attachment D. (See id. at 1.)

The eRFP provides the following schedule:

Description Date Time Release of eRFP As Published on the Georgia

Procurement Registry

("GPR")

N/A

Deadline for written questions sent via email to the Issuing Officer referenced in Section 1.5.

January 13, 2025 5:00 p.m.

ET

Bidders/Offerors' Conference Location:

Virtual

As Published on the GPR See GPR

Attendance is Optional Site Visit: Attendance to the site visit is Optional.

Site Visit Location is:

Georgia War Veterans Home 2249 Vinson Highway Birdsong Recreation Center Milledgeville, Ga. 31061

January 9, 2026 10:00 AM

EST

Responses to Written Questions

January 16, 2025 5:00 p.m.

ET

Proposals Due/Close Date and Time

As Published on the GPR See GPR

Proposal Evaluation Completed (on or about)

3 to 4 Weeks after Closing N/A

Negotiations Invitation Issued (emailed) (on or about);

discretionary process

4 to 5 Weeks after Closing TBD

Negotiations with Identified suppliers (on or about);

discretionary process

5 to 6 Weeks after Closing TBD

Final Evaluation (on or about) 6 to 7 Weeks after Closing N/A Finalize Contract Terms 7 to 8 Weeks after Closing N/A Notice of Intent to Award* [NOIA] (on or about)

8 to 9 Weeks after Closing N/A

Notice of Award [NOA] (on or about)

10 calendar days after NOIA N/A

(Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 2.)

On January 16, 2026, the Agency issued "Addendum 1" to the eRFP extending the written questions deadline to January 27, 2026 and the proposal due date/time to February 9, 2026. (See Ex. F, eRFP, Addendum 1 at 1.) On January 27, 2026, the Agency issued "Addendum 2" posting revisions for Attachment B, Attachments P through S, and the Agency's responses to written questions. (See Ex. G, eRFP, Addendum 2 at 1.; see also Ex. H, eRFP, Amended Att. B, Scope of Work.)

b. Proposal Submissions and Notice of Award

The offerors had to submit all elements of their proposals by February 9, 2026. STGi timely submitted all aspects of its proposal.

On April 17, 2026, the Agency issued its "Notice of Intent to Award" for Solicitation No.

48800-VET0000006, listing HMR as the Apparent Successful Offeror for $177,770,970.00. (Ex.

I, Notice of Intent to Award at 1.) The NOIA lists the cost scores of STGi, Interim Quality Partners LLC d/b/a Honor Aging, and HMR as 142, 200, and 142, respectively, whereas it lists 443, 377, and 580 as the validated technical scores. (Id. at 2.) The Agency found the Final Score for STGi as 585; for Honor Aging as 577; and for HMR as 722. (Id.) The Agency found that Offeror Consolidated Medical Staffing failed the "Mandatory Scoring" portion of the procurement, and therefore the Agency did not consider Consolidated Medical Staffing in the pool of offerors. (Id.)

The Agency provided the following breakdown in its NOIA, identifying HMR as the awardee:

Id. The Agency also provided a spreadsheet as its "Master Technical Evaluation" purportedly supporting the evaluators' decision-making in connection with the offerors' "'Mandatory Scored' Requirements" response sheet. (See e.g., Ex. J, Master Technical Evaluation (excerpts as relevant).)

Analysis of the ratings and explanations (if present) set forth in the Master Technical Evaluation reflects extensive errors, arising from erroneous readings of the STGi proposal, and imposition of disparate or unstated evaluation standards. Further, the record and public data shows that the Agency should have removed HMR from the competition for making a material misrepresentation and submitting a materially incomplete proposal.

ARGUMENT

I. HMR Withheld Directly Relevant Material In Its Mandatory Responsibility Questionnaire.

Although the evaluation record issued by the State Entity did not include any assessment of HMR's responsibility, the award to HMR confirms that the State Entity found HMR responsible.

See GPM § 5.6.2.2 (Feb. 2026); see also Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A, Electronic Request for Proposals at

18 (listing responsibility as prerequisite to selection and award). A review of materials available to STGi indicates that HMR improperly withheld material information from the State Entity regarding HMR's responsibility, requiring that DOAS sustain this protest and exclude HMR from the competition. At a minimum, HMR's failure to disclose required information requires the State Entity to retract its NOIA, allow the parties to revise their proposals (in HMR's case by adding improperly excluded information), consider the revised proposals, and make a new award and responsibility determination.

A protester may challenge this finding where a protester credibly alleges that (1) "definitive responsibility criteria contained in the solicitation were not met," or (2) the evaluators "failed to consider available relevant information that, by its nature, would be expected to have strong bearing on whether the apparent successful supplier should be found responsible." GPM § 6.5.2.

In Securus Technologies, LLC, Commissioner Atwood cited federal responsibility standards employed by the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") when he denied a protest of an agency's responsibility determination, finding that the agency had already considered all of the negative information cited by the protester, and the awardee had "devoted numerous pages of its proposal to its litigation history, listing and brief description of the lawsuits, as required by Mandatory Requirement number 23." (Ex. K, Georgia Protest Decisions (citing Securus Technologies, LLC, No. RFP 46700-GDC0000938 at 10, (Dec. 31, 2021).) In the instant case, by contrast, HMR's misrepresentation on its Responsibility Questionnaire prevented the agency from evaluating directly relevant information with a direct bearing on HMR's responsibility. As stated in the decision, those facts argue for a sustain and, at a minimum, a remand:

The appropriate remedy for protests alleging that a procuring entity failed to consider available information that by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible would [be] to provide such information to the procuring entity and require its consideration of the information prior to moving forward to contract award.

(Id.)

Under the circumstances of this procurement, however, that limited remedy of a remand is inadequate. The facts here are clear: HMR submitted a misrepresentation regarding their past contracting history, claiming it had never been terminated. Disclosure of such events was a definitive responsibility criteria explicitly required by the solicitation. As repeatedly held by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and as followed by both GAO and the Court of Federal Claims, an offeror's material misrepresentation requires competitive exclusion:

[W]e believe that the submission of a misstatement, as made in the instant procurement, which materially influences consideration of a proposal should disqualify the proposal. The integrity of the system demands no less. Any further consideration of the proposal in these circumstances would provoke suspicion and mistrust and reduce confidence in the competitive procurement system.

Planning Research Corp. v. United States, 971 F.2d 736, 741 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Informatics, Inc., B-18566, 57 Comp. Gen. 217, 225 (1978)) (finding misrepresentation regarding personnel warranted exclusion); Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 50 Fed. Cl. 443, 468

(2001) ("[a] bidder to a government contract who makes material misstatements in its proposal taints the award to such a bidder [and] that bidder will lose its right to execute the solicited work").

This penalty has been imposed by GAO specifically against an offeror that made misrepresentations in its responsibility submission. See Homesafe All., LLC, B-418266.5, 2020 CPD ¶ 350 (Comp.Gen. Oct. 21, 2020). In the instant case, HMR's proposal, and publicly available information, establish that HMR included a false statement in its required Supplier Responsibility Questionnaire, and that the HMR omission had the effect of concealing from the evaluators serious failings in HMR's management of a similar contract in the recent past.

The eRFP includes Attachment M, Supplier Responsibility Questionnaire, which requires offerors to answer various questions about their history and capability, including aspects of their history with similar contracts. Specifically, Questions 15 and 16 of the Questionnaire ask about prior negative performance and contract terminations:

Q.15: Received any formal unsatisfactory performance assessment(s) from any government entity on any contract?

Response: (YES/NO)

Q. 16. Terminated agreements/contracts in the past five years?

Response: (YES/NO)

(Ex. L, eRFP, Att. M at 4.) In its proposal, HMR answered both of these questions in the negative:

(Ex. M, HMR Att. M at 4.) These HMR responses are wrong. In 2023, the State of Maryland terminated HMR on a contract to operate the Charlotte Hall Veterans Home ("CHVH") in St.

Mary's County, MD. Maryland declared HMR's management so poor that the State had to take immediate termination action, and found that Maryland needed to obtain new management on an emergency basis:

This Emergency Procurement is needed immediately because on February 23, 2023, MDVA terminated its current vendor, HMR of Maryland, LLC for default, effective March 9, 2023. The contract termination was unavoidable due to ongoing violations of the contract which seriously jeopardized the life, health, and safety of CHVH's residents.

(Ex. N, MD. DEP'T. VETERANS AFF., REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT FOR MANAGEMENT

SERVICES OF CHARLOTTE HALL VETERANS HOME at 1 (2023).)

The eRFP required HMR to disclose any terminations or findings of unsatisfactory performance to enable the evaluators to consider HMR's responsibility. HMR withheld required information regarding its poor Maryland performance. HMR's Maryland performance failures go to the heart of the GWVH procurement, in which Georgia, like Maryland, seeks "to ensure that all residents in every unit of the State's Veterans Home are receiving supportive and quality care."

(Id.) HMR denied the evaluators the opportunity to consider the question of whether HMR's failure to meet that standard of care for the Veterans of Maryland impacts HMR's responsibility to provide such care for the Veterans of Georgia.

Had the Agency had the opportunity to consider this information as the eRFP contemplates, the Agency likely would have found HMR non-responsible and awarded the contract to STGi.

HMR's failure to disclose such directly required information constitutes a material misrepresentation compelling exclusion of HMR from the competition. At a minimum, HMR's failure to disclose required information compels the State Entity to retract its NOIA, allow the parties to revise their proposals (in HMR's case by adding improperly excluded information), consider the revised proposals, and make a new award and responsibility determination.

II. The Agency Has Inadequately Documented Its Evaluation Of The Offerors And Otherwise Errantly Evaluated The Offerors.

The evaluation record raises significant questions regarding the basis for the final scores and rankings of the offerors. Georgia procurement law compels State Entities to document the basis of any evaluation. The record of the GDVS award to HMR fails this basic test. The record fails to document multiple changes in the scores between initial and final scoring. Further, where the State Entity has provided explanations at all, those explanations contravene the record or reflect disparate treatment between the offerors. The result is a record that fails to substantiate the scoring advantage awarded to HMR to STGi's competitive prejudice. DOAS, accordingly, should sustain this protest.

The Georgia Procurement Manual, which governs the GWVH procurement, requires State Entities to document changes as a result of the evaluation process. The manual establishes the required process for consideration of responses to RFPs, including the meeting between the evaluators to "validate" the issued scores. Georgia Procurement Manual § 5.6.3.2.1. The Manual directs that evaluation committees must document changes made as a result of that meeting in the Master Evaluation spreadsheet:

The evaluation committee will convene to discuss the results of the independent scoring. As a result of this discussion, a committee member may modify his/her scoring; however, there is no requirement that all committee members reach agreement on a score for a particular question. Any changes to scoring based on discussions, and additional comments must be documented in SPD-EP013 Master Technical Evaluation Template.

(Id. (referencing Table 5.6, Step 5) (emphasis added).)

This obligation extends beyond merely noting that an evaluation has changed; the evaluation committee must provide an explanation for the change. Only the "reasonable judgment of the evaluation team" is entitled to deference. Georgia Procurement Manual § 6.5. When no explanations are offered, there is nothing to support a finding that any judgment exercised was reasonable.

The June 9, 2021 decision of Commissioner J. Alexander Atwood granting the appeal in CSA Security Agency, Inc. is illustrative here. (Ex. K, Georgia Protest Decisions (citing CSA Security Agency, Inc., No. RFP 99999-SPD0000178 (June 9, 2021).) In that case, the Commissioner held that ratings that the evaluation committee must support by meaningful written justification any scoring revisions made during evaluator discussions. See id. The Commissioner stated that evaluation ratings (other than initial "adequate" ratings) must be "supported by reasonable comments to allow a reviewer to determine whether reasonable judgment was exercised." (CSA Security Agency, Inc. at 2.) The Commissioner noted multiple changes in the offerors' ratings during the validation period, as exist in the record here. As with the record here, the evaluation committee record changes, which materially impacted the scoring, with brief phrases such as "sounds good" or "agree." (Id. at 2-3.) The Commissioner found that:

without substantive comments, it is impossible to discern the rationale for the rating which is necessary in order to determine whether the evaluators exercised reasonable judgment in their evaluation.

(Id. at 3.) Where a change in rating occurs without any explanation, the evaluators' judgment lacks necessary support.

The GWVH evaluation record contains numerous unexplained ratings revisions like those found improper in CSA Security Agency. Over and over, evaluators cut the numerical score of STGi between interim and "Verified" ratings without any explanation. In most reductions, the evaluation record shows no change in the description of the STGi proposal at all, but merely adds "After discussion" to the unchanged comment with no explanation of why the evaluators revised the score downward. In a few cases, the evaluators removed positive language from an initial comment with no explanation. In fact, the evaluators did not provide any real, substantive justification for any reduction in STGi's scores.

In the tables below, the changed language in the STGi evaluations is highlighted, all unhighlighted text is identical between initial and "Validated":

Kerry Dyer

Initial Rating

Initial Comment Valid.

Rating

Validated Comment

Q.1 45.00 (E)

Supplier provided Exhibit 12. That depicts a detail comparison and explanation of 38 CFR Part 51,

33.75 (G)

Base on discussionBased off my discussion [sic] I would like to change my rating to a good.

DVS Requirements and the supplier Operational Approach at the Veterans Home.

Supplier did provide a detail response to the explanation for CFR 38 Part 51.1

Q.2 35.00 (E)

Exhibit 16 outlines step by step approach for phased in action plan and Operational Milestone Overview. Exhibit 17 depicts the Onsite Leadership Support Schedule and Activities. These are all actions that the supplier used to mitigate any interruptions in managing day-to-day operations at the Veterans Home.

26.25 (G)

Exhibit 16 outlines step by step approach for phased in action plan and Operational Milestone Overview. Exhibit 17 depicts the Onsite Leadership Support Schedule and Activities. These are all actions that the supplier used to mitigate any interruptions in managing day-to-day operations at the Veterans Home.

Q.3 25.00 (G)

Supplier manages 160 bed skilled nursing home in Texas and exceeding the 150 bed skilled nursing home in Milledgeville.

Together these contracts demonstrates the ability to manage skilled nursing homes in excess of 150 beds.

15.00 (A)

Supplier manages 160 bed skilled nursing home in Texas and exceeding the 150 bed skilled nursing home in Milledgeville.

Together these contracts demonstrates the ability to manage skilled nursing homes in excess of 150 beds.

Q.4 40.00 (E)

Within first year the supplier reduced the number of regulatory citations from 13 to 2 demonstrating measurable improvement. In October 2025 supplier underwent a State Licensure survey which resulted in a deficiency-free licensure outcome.

20.00 (A)

Based off our conversation.

Within first year the supplier reduced the number of regulatory citations from 13 to 2 demonstrating measurable improvement. In October 2025 supplier underwent a State Licensure survey which resulted in a deficiency-free licensure outcome.

Q.5 35.00 (E)

Supplier executed a transition at Veterans Home within two weeks, retaining 98% of the workforce.

Established over 60 new vendor agreements.

17.50 (A)

After discussion, Supplier executed a transition at Veterans Home within two weeks, retaining 98% of the workforce. Established over 60 new vendor agreements.

Q.8 30.00 (E)

Supplier implemented a Centralized Staffing Coordinator Model to manage staffing patterns across the entire Veterans Home.

Since implementation staffing balance, across units improved, greater scheduling consistency, reduced reliance on mandatory overtime and short notice staffing adjustments and improved the ability to respond to the same day staffing gaps.

15.00 (A)

Supplier implemented a Centralized Staffing Coordinator Model to manage staffing patterns across the entire Veterans Home.

Q.9 15.00 (G)

Supplier transitioned to in house pharmacy company to Omnicare immediately improved cost

10.00 (A)

After discussion, Supplier transitioned to in house pharmacy company to Omnicare immediately

1 This is the only example of a newly written comment in response to a lowering of STGi's score, but it provides no explanation why the rating was lowered beyond praising STGi's "detail[ed] response to the explanation for CFR 38 Part 51."

efficiency and strengthened medication management. Supplier reduced medication cost by $100,000 in the first month at Veterans Home.

improved cost efficiency and strengthened medication management. Supplier reduced medication cost by $100,000 in the first month at Veterans Home.

Q.10 30.00 (E)

Supplier incorporates a detail monthly, weekly and daily list of activities for the Veterans. Supplier also implemented a volunteer Service and Care Feed program to strengthen communications and capture real-time feedback from Veterans and their families.

15.00 (A)

Supplier incorporates a detail monthly, weekly and daily list of activities for the Veterans. Supplier also implemented a volunteer Service and Care Feed program to strengthen communications and capture real-time feedback from Veterans and their families.

Q.12 25.00 (E)

Supplier has outlined a detailed dietary menu and operates a full-service in house dietary department allowing direct control over food preparation, quality and safety.

Supplier implemented a Certified Dietary Manager ensuring compliance with applicable Federal and State Regulations.

18.75 (G)

Based off our conversation, Supplier has outlined a detailed dietary menu and operates a full-service in house dietary department allowing direct control over food preparation, quality and safety.

Supplier implemented a Certified Dietary Manager ensuring compliance with applicable Federal and State Regulations.

Q.13 30.00 (E)

Supplier transitioned from decades of a paper-based environment to an integrated electronic workflow.

Implemented a PointClickCare system to strengthen documentation, care coordination, regulatory readiness.

15.00 (E)

Based off our conversation, Supplier transitioned from decades of a paper-based environment to an integrated electronic workflow.

Implemented a PointClickCare system to strengthen documentation, care coordination, regulatory readiness.

Q.21 30.00 (E)

Supplier as a dedicated transportation staffing model including 7 full-time CNAs whose primary role is serving as transportation drivers. Additionally supplier as fleet recommendations that will improve the current transportation plan.

15.00 (A)

Base on discussion Supplier as a dedicated transportation staffing model including 7 full-time CNAs whose primary role is serving as transportation drivers. Additionally supplier as fleet recommendations that will improve the current transportation plan.

(Ex. J, Master Technical Evaluation, "STGi" Tab, Columns L-Q.)

Mark Demers

Initial Rating

Initial Comment Valid.

Rating

Validated Comment

Q.2 35.00 (E)

Vendor manages day to day through structured leadership huddles that review staffing levels, census, acuity, admissions and discharges, incidents, and departmental priorities. Staffing coverage is verified in real time to ensure required RN supervision, compliance with minimum PPD

26.25 (G)

Vendor manages day to day through structured leadership huddles that review staffing levels, census, acuity, admissions and discharges, incidents, and departmental priorities. Staffing coverage is verified in real time to ensure required RN supervision, compliance with minimum PPD requirements, and appropriate unit-level coverage on every shift.

Variances or risks are addressed immediately through centralized staffing coordination and leadership escalation as needed.

Clinical operations are supported through PointClickCare, which enables real-time documentation, interdisciplinary communication, and quality monitoring. Exhibits 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 show the alignment of day to day operations with federal laws, regulations and standards of the VA and requirements of the state. It also included all the improvements made in the facility since 2023 and how it improved care.

requirements, and appropriate unit-level coverage on every shift.

Variances or risks are addressed immediately through centralized staffing coordination and leadership escalation as needed.

Clinical operations are supported through PointClickCare, which enables real-time documentation, interdisciplinary communication, and quality monitoring. Exhibits 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18 show the alignment of day to day operations with federal laws, regulations and standards of the VA and requirements of the state. It also included all the improvements made in the facility since 2023 and how it improved care.

Q.5 26.25 (G)

The vendor outlined start up from an perspective as there would be no start-up or ramp up period, just continuity of operations as well as ongoing readiness and optimization activities. In exhibit 22, the vendor outlined current leadership activities by name, by position, along with roles and responsibilities that would be performing the start up, continuity and close out functions. The vendors exhibit 23 outlines the critical and essential close-out elements, associated risks, and STGi's leadership responsibilities to support a seamless and responsible transition.

17.50 (A)

In exhibit 22, the vendor outlined current leadership activities by name, by position, along with roles and responsibilities that would be performing the start up, continuity and close out functions. The vendors exhibit 23 outlines the critical and essential close-out elements, associated risks, and STGi's leadership responsibilities to support a seamless and responsible transition.

(Id. at "STGi" Tab, Columns X-AC.)

While evaluator Carleton Deese's ratings of STGi were unchanged, in Mr. Deese's evaluation of HMR, he increased the score awarded to HMR on Q.5 with no change to the comments, and only the addition of "After discussion." (Id. at "HMR" Tab, Row 23, Columns R- W.)

One evaluator, Tonya Jarrett, did not revise any of her scores, but rather gave STGi low across-the-board ratings. As discussed below, the low final ratings of STGi's strong proposal lacked reason and reflected disparate standards applied to the offerors. The discussions in the validation process (apparently driven by Ms. Jarrett, the only evaluator whose scores did not change) repeatedly brought down multiple STGi ratings, which were primary drivers of the scoring gap that resulted in the erroneous award to HMR.

The record demonstrates that the basis of the award to HMR is undocumented and unreliable, as the record of the evaluation does not contain any indication of the real basis for the ratings assigned. As Commissioner Atwood stated, the addition of a few empty words cannot stand in for the required justifications that "allow a reviewer to determine whether reasonable judgment was exercised." (Ex. K, Georgia Protest Decisions (citing CSA Security Agency, Inc., No. RFP 99999-SPD0000178 at 2 (June 9, 2021).) Here, like in CSA Security Agency, "it is impossible to discern the rationale for the rating which is necessary in order to determine whether the evaluators exercised reasonable judgment in their evaluation." (Id. at 3.) As discussed further below, the scores assigned to both STGi and HMR are riddled with errors and contradictions.

Combined with the inexplicable and damaging reductions to STGi's scoring for no discernable reason, the scoring advantage accorded to HMR lacks reasoned support. Had the Agency reasonably evaluated the offerors STGi would have received comparable or higher ratings than HMR and had a substantial chance of receiving the award. DOAS, accordingly, should sustain this protest and require the Agency to objectively re-evaluate the offerors in accordance with the eRFP and the Georgia procurement rules.

III. HMR Submitted A Materially Incomplete And Noncompliant Proposal.

The eRFP includes a "Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet" that contained twenty-six questions. (See Ex. E, eRFP, Att. D, Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet.) The offerors had to respond to each of the twenty questions, some of which require attachments to support the responses. The offerors' response to this Worksheet formed the basis for the "Verified" scores that determined the award in this competition. Here, HMR failed to comply with its Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet" obligations rendering HMR's proposal unacceptable. (See Ex. B, eRFP, Att.

A, Electronic Request for Proposals at 13 ("To be considered responsive, responsible and eligible for award, any and all requirements identified in the Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet must be met.").)

DOAS protest decisions confirm that a proposal which fails to address a material requirement cannot provide a basis for award. In the Assistant Commissioner's decision in Mr.

Golf Carts, the Assistant Commissioner found a bidder properly disqualified where the bidder failed to include required information that would allow the State to conduct the RFP required evaluation anticipated in the RFQ. (See Ex. K, Georgia Protest Decisions) (citing Mr. Golf Carts, RFQ EQ-53900-210 (June 20, 2010); see also Golf Cars at Forest Lakes Golf Course, RFQ No.

EQ-55700-82 (Jan. 13, 2010) (eliminating awardee where awardee's proposal did not address explicit material requirement for golf carts with welded steel frames); Marcive, Inc., RFP 47200- 98000-10006-1 (July 1, 2010) (finding bidder properly disqualified where bidder did not provide the required comprehensive disaster recovery plan); Concept Software & Services, RFQ 42900- DED0000007 (July 28, 2010) (finding properly disqualified as nonresponsive where bidder failed to submit an required tax form); see also Sequoia Retail Systems, 55100-186 (March 25, 2010) (sustaining protest and voiding award, confirming that "[t]o be considered responsive and eligible for contract award, a supplier must meet all of the requirements of the RFQ."); Protest of Information Technology Consulting, Advisory & Infrastructure Related Services, RFP No. 99999- 001-0000001156, Feb. 21, 2008 (eliminating offeror that failed to deliver proposal in accordance with proposal service requirements stated in the solicitation: "PTI is non-responsive to a mandatory requirement of the RFP and ineligible for award.").) (Ex. K.)

Consistent with these requirements, the eRFP establishes that "[s]uppliers' responses must be complete in all respects, as required in each section of this eRFP." (Ex. B, eRFP, Att. A at 4.)

In the eRFP, the State Entity reserves the right to waive "irregularity or informality," but makes clear that where a proposal lacks a required material element, the Agency will reject the offeror's response:

It is also within the right of the State Entity to reject responses that do not contain all elements and information requested in this eRFP. A supplier's response will be rejected if the response contains any defect or irregularity and such defect or irregularity constitutes a material deviation from the eRFP requirements.

(Id. (emphasis added).) The evaluation instructions in the eRFP further confirm that specifically for the required material to be submitted with the Mandatory Scored Responses, "[a] material deviation will be cause for rejection of the proposal." (Id. at 15.)

Here, the Agency's evaluation of HMR under Question 4 of the "Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet" Requirements relates to offeror past performance, lacks reason, and disregards noncompliant elements of the HMR proposal. Under Question #4 of the Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet, each offeror had to provide inspection records for the facilities under the offeror's management. In addition, each offeror had to identify serious failures at these facilities:

To support response, please provide a copy of the last 2 annual survey report/results for each supplier managed facility. Include the number of Sentinel events for each managed facility, Immediate Jeopardy deficiencies for each managed facility and the number of veteran patient/family lawsuits for each managed facility.

(Ex. E, eRFP, Att. D, Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet at 2 (emphasis added).) These submissions reflect material elements of the mandatory response, necessary "to support" the representations of the offeror regarding recent performance.

HMR failed to meet the material requirements of the eRFP's Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet. As quoted above, the Mandatory Scored Response Worksheet requires submission of the "last 2 annual survey report/results for each supplier managed facility." (Id.) HMR failed to meet this requirement and indeed failed to disclose reports from thirteen of the fifteen properties in its management portfolio. This omission alone is a material deviation from the mandatory terms of the RFP, rendering HMR ineligible for award. The omission is particularly serious, as the withheld reports demonstrate that HMR's facilities have involved at least four Immediate Jeopardy incidents in 2025 alone.

HMR provides management services for numerous veteran homes. On its website, HMR identifies fifteen veterans homes across Alabama, South Carolina, and Texas. (See Our Communities, HMR Veteran Serv., hmrveteranservices.com/communities/.) HMR was required by the plain language of the eRFP to submit two surveys from each one of these facilities. HMR, however, provides reports for only two of its fifteen facilities, providing four reports each for "Veteran Village State Veterans Home" and for the "Richard M. Campbell Veterans Nursing

Home." (See Ex. O, HMR Mandatory Scored Responses at 22; see also Ex. P, HMR Submitted Surveys.)

ProPublica maintains a searchable database of inspection survey reports for American nursing homes, including many in the HMR portfolio. This database suggests that HMR failed to provide required reports for numerous facilities in its portfolio. Several of the reports posted by ProPublica reflect events of Immediate Jeopardy:

HMR manages the Ussery Roan Texas State Veteran's Home in Amarillo, Texas. (See Ussery-Roan Texas State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/ussery-roan-texas-state-veterans-home/.)

ProPublica posted two survey reports for the Ussery Roan home from 2025. (Ussery-Roan Texas State Veterans Home, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-676157/) These two reports identify nine deficiencies, including one instance of Immediate Jeopardy. According to the report of April 11, 2025, a resident eloped from the facility multiple times, and the facility lacked proper controls to prevent these incidents. (Ex. Q, Ussery Roan Texas State Veterans Home Survey, Dep't Health Hum. Serv.). According to the survey, the deficient practice of the facility "could place residents at risk of a serious injury or serious harm and placed residents at risk of heat or cold exposure, dehydration and/or other medical complications, or being struck by a motor vehicle." (Id. at 1.)

HMR manages the Clyde W. Cosper Texas State Veteran's Home in Bonham, Texas. (See Clyde W. Cosper Texas State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/clyde-w-cosper-texas-state-veterans-home/) ProPublica posted two survey reports for the Cosper home from 2025. (Clyde W. Cosper Texas State Veterans Home Survey, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-675873.) These two reports identify fifteen deficiencies, including two findings of Immediate Jeopardy. According to the report of February 7, 2025, poor care practices at the facility related to a resident's ankle injury led to pressure injuries (ulcerations and open skin wounds) on the patient's foot. (Ex. R, Clyde W. Cosper Texas State Veterans Home Survey, Dep't Health Hum. Serv. at 16-24.) HMR did not disclose the finding as part of its proposal, but the HMR MSR write-up described its plan to prevent such injuries with no mention of the Cosper incident. (Ex. O, HMR Mandatory Scored Responses at 16-17.) Evaluator Demers included this HMR pressure injury plan in the writeup supporting the Good rating assigned to HMR. (Ex. J, Master Technical Evaluation spreadsheet; "HMR" Tab, Row 22, Column AB.)

The report also recorded a second Immediate Jeopardy incident in which a resident eloped from the facility and "was found outside sitting on the curb of the facility's parking lot with her wheelchair tipped over." (Ex. R, Clyde W. Cosper Texas State Veterans Home Survey, Dep't Health Hum. Serv. at 25-33.)

HMR manages the Tuskegee Airmen Texas State Veterans Home in Fort Worth, Texas.

(See Tuskegee Airmen Texas State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/tuskegee-airmen-texas-state-veterans-home/.)

ProPublica posted one report from the Tuskegee Airmen home from 2025. (Tuskegee

Airmen Texas State Veterans Home, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-745057.) This report details an Immediate Jeopardy condition arising from an incident where one resident attacked another. (See Ex. S, Tuskegee Airmen Texas State Veterans Home, Dep't Health Hum. Serv.)

HMR manages the Richard A. Anderson Texas State Veterans Home in Houston, Texas.

(See Richard A. Anderson Texas State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/richard-a-anderson-texas-state-veterans-home/.)

The two most recent surveys, reporting a total of three deficiencies, are available at ProPublica. (See Richard A. Anderson Texas State Veterans Home, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-676479/.) HMR did not provide the surveys in its proposal.

HMR manages the Ambrosio Guillen Texas State Veterans Home in El Paso, Texas. (See Ambrosio Guillen Texas State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/ambrosio-guillen-texas-state-veterans-home/).

The last two survey reports for the Guillen Home are available on ProPublica. (Ambrosio Guillen Texas State Veterans Home, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-676060/.) These two reports involve five deficiencies. HMR did not identify or provide the reports in its proposal.

HMR manages the Veteran Village State Veterans Home in Florence, South Carolina. (See Veteran Village State Veterans Home, HMR Veteran Serv., https://hmrveteranservices.com/locations/veteran-village-state-veterans-home/.) The two most recent surveys for these facilities report a total of six deficiencies. (See Veteran Village, ProPublica, https://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/homes/h-425419.)

HMR did not identify or provide the reports in its proposal.

HMR also operates six Veterans' homes in Alabama: the CSM Bennie G. Adkins State Veterans Home in Enterprise, Alabama; the Colonel Robert L. Howard State Veterans Home in Pell City, Alabama; the Floyd E. "Tut" Fann State Veterans Home in Huntsville, Alabama; the William F. Green State Veterans Home in Bay Minette, Alabama; and the Bill Nichols State Veterans Home in Alexander City, Alabama. (See https://hmrveteranservices.com/communities/) The ProPublica site has not catalogued these facilities, but HMR did not provide any reports from these facilities in its proposal. This is notable, because HMR's proposal boasts of its operation of State Veterans Homes in Alabama:

In Alabama, HMR has operated three 150 bed State Veterans Homes continuously since 2004 and later expanded to include additional large campuses, including Homes exceeding 170 beds. In Texas, HMR operates State Veterans Homes with bed counts of 160 and above, each within distinct regulatory, funding, and oversight structures. Across its current portfolio, HMR operates six State Veterans Homes with 150 beds or more.

(Ex. O, HMR Mandatory Scored…