CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2; B-282075.3, March 15, 2000

CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2; B-282075.3, March 15, 2000 TITLE: CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2; B-282075.3, March 15, 2000 BNUMBER: B-282075.2; B-282075.3 DATE: March 15, 2000 ********************************************************************** CRAssociates, Inc., B-282075.2; B-282075.3, March 15, 2000 Decision Matter of: CRAssociates, Inc. File: B-282075.2; B-282075.3 Date: March 15, 2000 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Steve Y. Kim, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Robert S. Ryland, Esq., James S. Hostetler, Esq., and Kathleen A. Buck, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis, for United Payors and United Providers, an intervenor. Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Source selection decision is not reasonable where it is based on a misevaluation of the protester's and awardee's proposals in numerous areas, and the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the protester. DECISION CRAssociates, Inc. (CRA) protests the award of a contract to United Payors and United Providers (UP) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 282-99-0001, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for health care services for alien detainees. CRA alleges that HHS misevaluated CRA's and UP's proposals, failed to conduct meaningful discussions with CRA, and unreasonably determined that UP's proposal represented the best value. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for the care and custody of detained aliens located throughout the United States who are held in INS Service Processing Centers (SPC), Contract Detention Centers (CDC), and state, county, or local correctional facilities or jails. The HHS Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) supports the INS mission by providing or arranging appropriate and cost effective health care for the detainees. Primary care at all SPCs and some CDCs is provided by U.S. Public Health Service physicians, pharmacists, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses. Specialized services are provided through a nationwide integrated health care system. The RFP at issue here contemplated the award of a cost-reimbursement plus fixed-fee contract for specified health care services for a period of 5 years. According to the RFP's statement of work (SOW), section C.4, the successful contractor is responsible for four tasks. Task I, "staffing," requires the contractor to provide full-time, part-time, and short-term substitution staffing at SPCs and CDCs. The contractor is responsible for identifying, screening, employing, and paying identified practitioners for ongoing needs and unanticipated circumstances such as a sudden influx of aliens or unforeseen shortages of professional staff. Short-term vacancies are to be filled through contractor-developed local staffing pools to meet same-day replacement requirements. Other replacements and provision of consultants are to be provided within specified periods after DIHS requests. Task II, "on-site medical and support services," requires the provision of services such as psychiatric, dental, radiological, and medical laboratory. Task III, "integrated health care support system," requires the establishment of a comprehensive preferred provider network, claims adjudication, and payment processing system, along with computer support systems. Task IV, "fiscal intermediary," requires the contractor to review and pay claims for medical services rendered to detainees. An estimated $198,884,911 in claims are anticipated over the life of the contract and all offerors were required to include this plug figure in their cost proposals. According to the RFP sect. M.3, the technical evaluation was to be based on the completeness and thoroughness of the technical proposals. Specifically, technical proposals were evaluated under the following factors: (1) technical approach (40 points); (2) understanding the problem (15 points); (3) key personnel (15 points); (4) organizational experience (15 points); and (5) adequacy of program management (15 points). The agency also evaluated whether offerors possessed sufficient cash reserves to accomplish task IV. RFP sect. M.4. For competitive range proposals, the agency also evaluated past performance. Under past performance, the agency was to assess the relative risks associated with each offeror, including those associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the contract requirements. Past performance was to be assigned a narrative rating of "excellent," "good," "none," "marginal," or "poor." RFP sect. M.5. Overall, evaluation of the technical proposals was to receive paramount consideration.