Optum Workers' Compensation Services of Florida (1605C3-21-R-00011)

B-421366,B-421366.2 Apr 11, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PMSI, LLC, d/b/a Optum Workers Compensation Services of Florida (Optum), of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Matrix Healthcare Services, Inc. (myMatrixx), also of Tampa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605C3-21-R-00011, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for pharmacy benefit management services. Optum challenges the evaluation of the awardee's past performance and corporate experience. The protester also contends that the agency erred in its conduct of the best-value tradeoff. 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: Optum Workers Compensation Services of Florida File: B-421366; B-421366.2 Date: April 11, 2023 Alex P. Hontos, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney LLP, for the protester. Steven A. Neeley, Esq., Brian P. Waagner, Esq., George E. Stewart, Esq., and Leah C. Kaiser, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for Matrix Healthcare Services, Inc., the intervenor. Robert Proudfoot, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Labor, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the evaluation of the relevancy of the awardee’s past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging the evaluation of awardee’s corporate experience is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 3. Protest challenging the best-value tradeoff determination is denied where the record reflects that the contracting officer reasonably found that the protester’s slightly superior technical proposal was not worth the significantly higher price. DECISION PMSI, LLC, d/b/a Optum Workers Compensation Services of Florida (Optum), of Tampa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Matrix Healthcare Services, Inc. (myMatrixx), also of Tampa, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1605C3-21-R-00011, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for pharmacy benefit management services. Optum challenges the evaluation of the awardee’s past performance and corporate experience. The protester also contends that the agency erred in its conduct of the best-value tradeoff. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOL, through its Office of Worker Compensation Programs (OWCP), administers several workers compensation programs for the benefit of federal employees. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 7. DOL issued the RFP on August 24, 2021, seeking comprehensive pharmacy benefits management (PBM) services for two programs administered by OWCP: the Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation program, and the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation program.[1] Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COS) at 3; Agency Report (AR), Exh. 2b, RFP at 22.[2] These programs provide for pharmacy benefits to federal employees with work-related injuries or illnesses who have accepted workers’ compensation. These benefits include pharmacy services, durable medical equipment (DME), and diagnostic services. COS at 3. Among the specific tasks to be performed by the contractor are pharmacy benefits management; customer support; verifying eligibility and processing claims for payment; fraud, waste, and abuse monitoring; report preparation; information management; formulary management; specialty pharmacy services; providing access to DME; and system auditing. RFP at 43-58. The solicitation anticipated the issuance of a fixed-price contract with a base period of one year and four 12-month options. RFP at 1. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: technical approach, past performance and price. Id. at 152. The technical approach factor included six subfactors, of equal importance: (1) understanding of the requirement, (2) security requirements, (3) corporate experience, (4) start-up plan/phase-out plan, (5) key personnel, and (6) quality control plan. Id. at 153-54. The solicitation provided that the technical approach factor was significantly more important than past performance and price, and when combined, both non-price factors were more important than price. Id. at 152. Additionally, the RFP provided that as the technical approach and past performance differences narrowed, price would become more important, and that the agency would not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior technical features.