CGS Administrators, LLC (75FCMC19R0023)

B-419539,B-419539.2 Apr 28, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CGS Administrators, LLC, of Nashville, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, of Fargo, North Dakota, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0023, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide services for the administration of Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) fee-for-service benefit claims. CGS challenges almost every aspect of the agency's evaluation. 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:  CGS Administrators, LLC File:  B-419539; B-419539.2 Date:  April 28, 2021 Craig A. Holman, Esq., Kara L. Daniels, Esq., and Nathaniel E. Castellano, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Kathryn Bucher, Esq., Brian G. Walsh, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq.,  Lindy C. Bathurst, Esq., Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., and Jennifer Eve Retener, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, the intervenor. Douglas W. Kornreich, Esq., Pamela Waldron, Esq., and Martin McEnrue, Esq., Department of Health & Human Services, for the agency. John Sorrenti, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s cost realism evaluation is denied where the record shows that the upward adjustments to protester’s proposed costs were reasonable. 2.  Protest alleging that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions is denied where record shows that the agency’s discussions questions led the protester into the area of its proposal that required revision. 3.  Protest that awardee had impermissible impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest is denied where record shows that agency meaningfully considered the potential for a conflict and reasonably concluded that a conflict did not exist. 4.  Protest that agency unreasonably and unequally evaluated technical approach and past performance is denied where record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation, and any differences in the evaluation arose from differences in proposals. 5.  Protest that best-value determination was flawed is denied where record shows that it was reasonable, supported by the record, and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION CGS Administrators, LLC, of Nashville, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Noridian Healthcare Solutions, LLC, of Fargo, North Dakota, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 75FCMC19R0023, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for a Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) to provide services for the administration of Medicare Part A and Part B (A/B) fee-for-service benefit claims.  CGS challenges almost every aspect of the agency’s evaluation.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was issued under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15 procedures for a MAC to provide specified health insurance benefit administration services, including Medicare claims processing and payment services in support of the Medicare program for a geographic region known as Jurisdiction E (JE).[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7B, RFP amend. 4, at 9; AR, Tab 3B, Statement of Work (SOW) at 19.  The RFP anticipated a cost-plus-award-fee contract with a 4 to 6-month implementation period, a 6 to 8-month base period, six 1-year option periods, and a close-out/transition option period not to exceed 6 months.[2]  RFP at 9, 18. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three evaluation factors:  technical approach, past performance, and cost.  Id. at 127-28.  The RFP stated that the technical approach evaluation factor is more important than the past performance evaluation factor, and the two non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.  Id. at 127. The RFP instructed offerors to submit their proposals in five separate volumes, including a proposal assumption volume, a technical proposal volume (addressing the technical approach and past performance evaluation factors), a business proposal volume (addressing cost), and a conflict of interest volume.  Id. at 95.  For the technical approach evaluation factor, each offeror had to submit a program management plan, a staffing plan, and an explanation of how it would perform certain identified mission-essential functions.[3]  Id.