TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation

B-415222.3,B-415222.4,B-415222.6,B-415222.7 May 02, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation (TriWest), of Phoenix, Arizona, protests the award of two contracts to Optum Public Sector Solutions, Inc. (OPSS), of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA791-16-R-0086, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for community care network (CCN) services. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluations of proposals and source selection decisions. We deny the protests. 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: TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation File: B-415222.3; B-415222.4; B-415222.6; B-415222.7 Date: May 2, 2019 Robert S. Ryland, Esq., and H. Boyd Greene, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Kathleen C. Little, Esq., Robert J. Rothwell, Esq., Robert D. Vander Lugt, Esq., Amanda J. Dietrick, Esq., and Jenny J. Yang, Esq., Little, Rothwell and Vander Lugt PLLC; and Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., and David F. Dowd, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for the protester. Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Kayleigh M. Scalzo, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., Evan R. Sherwood, Esq., Peter B. Terenzio III, Esq., and Brooke G. Stanley, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for Optum Public Sector Solutions, Inc., the intervenor. Richard A. Bechtel II, Esq., Jason A.M. Fragoso, Esq., and Bridget E. Grant, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of offerors' technical proposals is denied where the evaluations and source selection decisions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity and agency's evaluation of price proposals was unreasonable is denied where the solicitation is not ambiguous and the agency's evaluation of price was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest that the agency failed to compute and consider total evaluated prices in a best-value tradeoff is denied where the agency reasonably considered the price premium as a percentage of savings in comparison to the government estimate in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation (TriWest), of Phoenix, Arizona, protests the award of two contracts to Optum Public Sector Solutions, Inc. (OPSS), of Rockville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. VA791-16-R-0086, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for community care network (CCN) services. The protester challenges multiple aspects of the agency's evaluations of proposals and source selection decisions. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued on December 28, 2016, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12 and 15. Agency Report (AR), Exh. 3, RFP, at 1, 175. The RFP contemplated award of three fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, one in each of the three regions specified in the RFP, for a base period ending September 30 of the fiscal year in which the award is made and seven 1-year options. Id. at 5-6, 36, 176, 187.1 The purpose of the procurement is to establish and maintain a network of high performing licensed healthcare providers and healthcare practitioners to deliver patient-centered care to veterans. Id. at 57. This care includes medical, surgical, complementary and integrative healthcare services, durable medical equipment, pharmacy, and dental services. Id. at 56. These protests relate to the contracts awarded in regions 2 and 3, which have a maximum ordering value of over $18 billion and $21.5 billion, respectively.2 The RFP included the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical; (2) past performance; (3) socioeconomic concerns; and (4) price. Id. at 187-188. The technical factor included the following three subfactors: (1) network management and claims adjudication; (2) management approach; and (3) corporate experience/capability. Id. at 187. The RFP advised that the first two subfactors were of equal importance and that each of these two subfactors, individually, was more important than the third subfactor. Id. at 188. The RFP also advised that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. Id.