Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (75FCMC19R0002)

B-418580 Jun 17, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (WPS), of Madison, Wisconsin, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to exclude WPS's proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0002 for Medicare administration services. WPS asserts that the agency's bases for excluding WPS's proposal were unreasonable and inconsistent with the provisions of the solicitation. 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:  Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation File:  B-418580 Date:  June 17, 2020 Daniel P. Graham, Esq., Ryan D. Stalnaker, Esq., John M Satira, Esq., and Peter T. Thomas, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Douglas W. Kornreich, Esq., and Pamela Waldron, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably eliminated protester’s proposal from consideration where the proposal contained multiple weaknesses and significant weaknesses including failure to adequately address the solicitation’s requirements regarding staffing and jurisdiction‑specific risks. DECISION   Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation (WPS), of Madison, Wisconsin, protests the decision by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to exclude WPS’s proposal from further consideration under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0002 for Medicare administration services.  WPS asserts that the agency’s bases for excluding WPS’s proposal were unreasonable and inconsistent with the provisions of the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In February 2019, the agency issued RFP No. 75FCMC19R0002 to obtain Medicare benefit and claims administration services[1] from a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for the geographic area identified as “Jurisdiction 6” (J6).[2]  AR, Tab 4, RFP at 8.  The solicitation contemplates award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for a 1‑year implementation/base period and six 1-year option periods; provides that award will be made on a best-value tradeoff basis; and establishes the following evaluation factors:  technical approach, past performance, and cost/price.[3]  RFP at 16, 133-38.  The solicitation required offerors to submit detailed management and staffing plans; identified several performance requirements that are considered “mission-essential,” including the medical review function,[4] id. at 114; provided workload estimates for various requirements; and gave directions to offerors regarding the content of their proposals and the criteria against which they would be evaluated.  For example, with regard to the medical review function, the solicitation directed each offeror to address its understanding of “jurisdiction-specific risk points.”  Id. at 120.  Offerors were also directed to provide detailed staffing information regarding total proposed full-time equivalent personnel (FTEs), labor categories/skill mix, and management-to-staff ratio, and to “clearly describe both [the offeror’s] historical and proposed management effort . . . so that the government can determine any substantial changes to management approach and span of control.”[5]  Id. at 115-17.  In this regard, offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated to determine the extent the staffing and management plans “will provide knowledgeable, quality personnel in sufficient number [to successfully perform the contract].”  Id. at 117.  Finally, offerors were advised that “[f]ailure to provide the information required in order to evaluate a proposal could result in rejection of the proposal for being technically unacceptable.”  Id. at 133.  On or before the April 1, 2019 closing date, proposals were submitted by four offerors, including WPS.  WPS is currently the MAC for jurisdiction 5 (J5) and jurisdiction 8 (J8),[6] and its proposal stated:  “WPS’s proposed MR [medical review] strategy for this J6 contract is based on the MR strategy described in the [strategy document] that WPS submitted . . . for the J8 A/B MAC contract.”  AR, Tab 6, WPS Proposal (Vol. II, Tab C) at 14.  WPS’s proposal further stated that “the supervisors and manager will [redacted],” asserting that this approach was more “cost-efficient” than [redacted] and acknowledged that WPS intended for its supervisors to [redacted].  AR, Tab 5, WPS Proposal (Vol. III, Tab E) at 68.