Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Comptroller General of the United States
November 18, 2019
[EDITOR'S NOTE: PAGE NUMBERS APPEARING IN BOLD BRACKETS, [CPD 1], REFLECT THE OFFICIAL PAGINATION OF THE U.S. COMPTROLLER GENERAL PROCUREMENT DECISIONS.]
[CPD 1] DECISION
Ohio KePRO, Inc. (KEPRO), of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, protests the issuance of a task order to Livanta, LLC, of Annapolis Junction, Maryland, [*2] under task order request for proposals (TORP) No. 190361, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for beneficiary oversight and claim review services. KEPRO challenges the agency's cost realism analysis, technical evaluation, and source selection decision.
We sustain the protest.
[CPD 2] BACKGROUND
On March 28, 2019, the agency issued the solicitation, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to contractors holding CMS's Beneficiary and Family Centered Care - Quality Improvement Organization (BFCC-QIO) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts. Agency Report (AR), Tab 3m, TORP; Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 3. 1 The solicitation sought proposals to provide beneficiary oversight and expert services for Medicare claim reviews nationwide. AR, Tab 3m, TORP, attach. 1, Statement of Work (SOW) at 1, 12. 2
Under the SOW, the contractor "shall furnish all the necessary services, qualified personnel, material, equipment, and workspace facilities, not otherwise provided by the agency, as needed to perform the requirements of this T[ask] O[rder]." Id. at 3. According to the agency, the purpose of this task order is "to decrease the paid claims error rate and address medical review related coverage, coding and billing errors to improve healthcare services for Medicare beneficiaries and protect the Medicare Trust Fund." COS at 1.
The solicitation contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a 5-year period. TORP, attach. 7, Terms and Conditions, at 1-2. The solicitation stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering cost and the [*4] following non-cost factors, in descending order of importance: technical approach and understanding, key and other recommended personnel and staffing plan, experience, and Section 508 compliance. 3 TORP, attach. 6, Proposal Preparation Instructions, at 12. In rating the non-cost factors, the solicitation provided that the agency would assign adjectival ratings. TORP, attach. 6, Proposal Preparation Instructions, at 12.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 441 *; 2020 Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P47
Matter of: Ohio KePRO, Inc.
protest, realism, rates, solicitation, direct labor, costs, offeror's, cost analysis, evaluated, non-review, attach, contemporaneous, proposals, projects, realistic, contends, contracting, baseline, challenges, contractor, asserts, deviation, estimated, recommend, post-protest, personnel, argues, assess, orders, methodology