National Government Services, Inc.

B-412142 Dec 30, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights National Government Services, Inc. (NGS), of Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to CGS Administrators, Inc. (CGS), of Nashville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0096, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for a Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC). NGS challenges CMS's cost realism analysis, past performance and technical evaluations, and source selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  National Government Services, Inc. File:  B-412142 Date:  December 30, 2015 Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Tracye Winfrey Howard, Esq., Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq., George E. Petel, Esq., and Craig Smith, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., Rachael K. Plymale, Esq., and James A. Tucker, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for CGS Administrators, Inc., the intervenor. Erin V. Podolny, Esq., Lucy G. Mac Gabhann, Esq., and Brian E. Hildebrandt, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Pedro E. Briones, Esq., and Nora K. Adkins, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s cost, past performance, and technical evaluations, and best‑value tradeoff decision is denied where the record demonstrates that the evaluations and tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION National Government Services, Inc. (NGS), of Indianapolis, Indiana, protests the award of a contract to CGS Administrators, Inc. (CGS), of Nashville, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0096, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for a Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC).  NGS challenges CMS’s cost realism analysis, past performance and technical evaluations, and source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures and provided for the award of a cost‑plus‑award‑fee contract for a DME MAC to provide health insurance benefit administration services for Jurisdiction B, including processing and paying Medicare claims from beneficiaries and providers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).[1]  RFP, amend. 1, at 2, 128; SOW at 10-11.  The solicitation provided for a performance period of up to five years.[2]  RFP, amend. 1, at 10. The RFP stated that award would be made on the basis of a best‑value tradeoff considering three evaluation factors:  past performance, technical approach, and cost.  Id. at 128-29.  The RFP also stated that the non‑cost evaluation factors were of equal importance, and when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id.  The solicitation advised that in the evaluation process, primary consideration would be given to the technical quality of proposals.  Id. at 128. Offerors were instructed to submit their proposals in five separate volumes, including, as relevant here, a proposal assumption volume, a technical proposal volume (which was to address both technical approach and past performance), and a business (i.e., cost) volume.[3]  Id. at 90, 101, 103-04 (volumes 2-4).  Offerors were also required to give an extensive oral presentation to CMS technical, program, and contracting staff.  Id. at 90-94, 109, 111, 114, 116-17. In their proposal assumption volume, offerors were to provide a detailed basis of estimate (BOE) for the base and option years and propose a level of effort (LOE) using a detailed spreadsheet provided with the RFP.  Id. at 101-03; attach. J.18, BOE.  The BOE template was broken down by SOW provision, which was further divided by subcontract line item number (SLIN) and workload category/subcategory (e.g., SOW § D.1.2, SLIN AC, workload category/subcategory bills/claims-EMC), and included prepopulated annual workload estimates for each.[4]  RFP, amend. 1, attach.