Anthem Alliance for Health, Inc.; TRICARE Management, B-

B-278189.5 Jul 13, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is denied where the requesting parties do not demonstrate that our prior decision contained factual or legal errors. Offerors were required to propose three health care options for MHSS beneficiaries in geographic Regions 2 and 5. The RFP provided that the agency would award a contract to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. The technical scores were derived by evaluating 11 performance tasks. All of which were listed as evaluation subfactors within seven "major technical factors.". (2) the agency's evaluation of Anthem's experience and performance was contrary to the express provisions of the solicitation. Where the solicitation is silent as to the relative importance of the subfactors. View Decision Matter of: Anthem Alliance for Health, Inc.; TRICARE Management Activity--Reconsideration File: B-278189.5 Date: July 13, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Anthem Alliance for Health, Inc. and the Department of Defense's TRICARE Management Activity (TMA), /1/ jointly request reconsideration of our decision Foundation Health Fed. Servs., Inc.; Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., B-278189.3, B-278189.4, Feb. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD Para. ___, in which we sustained Foundation's and Humana's protests against the award of a contract to Anthem under request for proposals (RFP) No. MDA906-95-R-0005, for health care and associated administrative services for Military Health Services System (MHSS) beneficiaries. We deny the request. BACKGROUND Under the RFP, offerors were required to propose three health care options for MHSS beneficiaries in geographic Regions 2 and 5. Specifically, the RFP required offerors to propose health care systems under which beneficiaries opt to obtain services: (1) from providers of their own choosing on a fee-for-service basis (the TRICARE Standard program); (2) from members of the contractor's preferred provider organization (the TRICARE Extra program); or (3) from a contractor-established health maintenance organization (the TRICARE Prime program). The RFP provided that the agency would award a contract to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government, stating that technical factors would be worth 60 percent of the total evaluation score and evaluated cost 40 percent. The technical scores were derived by evaluating 11 performance tasks, along with experience and performance, all of which were listed as evaluation subfactors within seven "major technical factors." We sustained the protests on the bases that: (1) the agency did not accurately disclose the relative importance assigned to the significant technical evaluation factors and subfactors, as required by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(a)(2)(A) (1994); (2) the agency's evaluation of Anthem's experience and performance was contrary to the express provisions of the solicitation; and (3) portions of the agency's cost evaluation lacked a reasonable basis. Relative Weights of Evaluation Subfactors Section 2305 of Title 10 of the United States Code requires that solicitations "at a minimum" include "a statement of--(i) all significant factors and significant subfactors which the head of the agency reasonably expects to consider . . . ; [and](ii) the relative importance assigned to each of those factors and subfactors . . . ." 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2305(a)(2)(A). Where the solicitation is silent as to the relative importance of the subfactors, offerors can only assume that the subfactors are of approximately equal importance. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., B-255286.2, Apr. 12, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para. 306 at 5; Informatics, Inc., B-194734, Aug. 22, 1979, 79-2 Para. 144 at 6. The solicitation stated that the "major technical factors" were listed in descending order of importance, but provided no meaningful information regarding the relative importance of the tasks/subfactors. Consistent with the authority referenced above, the protesters interpreted the solicitation as providing that the tasks/subfactors within each major factor were of equal importance. In actuality, however, the agency's evaluation scheme did not accord equal weight to the tasks/subfactors within each major factor. /2/ Thus, offerors were unaware that, for example, Task I/Health Care Providers was nearly twice as important as Task III/Utilization and Quality Management; that Task IV/Enrollment, Marketing and Support Services, a subfactor under the sixth most important major factor, was more important than Task XI/Start-up and Transition, a subfactor under the second most important factor; or that Task V/Claims Processing was six times more important than Task VI/Program Integrity, another subfactor under the same major factor.