• LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845

Bid Protest Weekly
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp., B-401063, May 4, 2009

  • By GCPC GovCon Legal Team
  • March 7, 2012
  • Cost RealismLabor Rate PricingPast PerformanceTechnical Evaluation

Link: GAO Decision

Protestor: Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Disposition: Protest Sustained.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

GAO Digest:

  1. Protest challenging agency’s cost realism evaluation is sustained where the agency concedes an error in accepting awardee’s proposed labor rates for its existing staff based on market surveys, rather than the actual labor rates for its staff, and where the agency unreasonably ignored assumptions made in awardee’s proposal regarding indirect costs.
  2. Protest challenging agency’s technical and past performance evaluations is sustained where the record does not demonstrate that the agency reasonably evaluated offerors’ proposals.
  3. Protest is sustained where agency failed to conduct discussions regarding adverse past performance that the protester had not previously had an opportunity to address.

General Counsel P.C. Highlight:

Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corp. (WPS) protested the award to National Government Services, Inc. (NGS) of a contract for Medicare administrative contractor (MAC) services in jurisdiction 8 (J8), covering Michigan and Indiana, on the grounds that the agency improperly evaluated offerors’ cost and technical proposals and past performance, and conducted unfair and inadequate discussions. The award for J8 was part of a larger solicitation to provide MAC services in several jurisdictions, but which required offerors to submit separate proposals for each jurisdiction. The agency conducted two rounds of discussions with three competitive offerors (including WPS and NGS), with each round of discussions having a series of follow-up exchanges with each offeror. In its technical proposal, NGS indicated that it would perform the contract requirements using its existing staff, but its proposed labor rates were based on market surveys identifying average salary rates, rather than its current labor rates.

The GAO first considered WPS’s objections to agency evaluation of the offerors’ proposed costs. It agreed with WPS’s assertion that the agency unreasonably evaluated NGS’s indirect costs and direct labor rates, but disagreed with the remainder of its arguments. It agreed that the agency ignored assumptions made by NGS regarding the impact of the award of other MAC contracts, failing to consider NGS’s higher indirect costs should it only be awarded the contract for J8. The GAO also agreed that the agency’s evaluation of NGS’s direct labor costs was flawed, because it relied on the labor rates NGS established through market surveys, rather than its current market rates, and then applied this rates to the lower indirect costs assumed if NGS was awarded contracts for multiple jurisdictions. The GAO rejected WPS’s argument that the agency’s evaluation of proposed costs was flawed because the agency did not consider the realism of NGS’s overall cost on a per-claim basis, noting that there is no requirement that an agency follow any particular cost realism evaluation method. Finally, it disagreed that the agency improperly adjusted WPS’s proposed costs for postage, finding the agency’s concerns about the adequacy of WPS’s data reasonable.

The GAO agreed that the agency should have considered an offeror’s experience with the HIGLAS accounting system under the claims processing subfactor of the technical proposal evaluation. It also agreed that the agency should have considered the effect of NGS’s low proposed labor rates on its technical proposal. The GAO then agreed that the agency’s evaluation of WPS’s past performance was unreasonable, because the record did not indicate whether it considered favorable satisfaction survey data provided by WPS in its proposal. Finally, the GAO addressed WPS’s assertions that the agency engaged in improper discussions in three areas, finding only that the agency did not conduct reasonable discussions regarding appeals. While WPS had had an opportunity to address some of its adverse past performance information, the GAO found that WPS had not had an opportunity to respond to a substantial portion of the information upon which the agency relied in assessing a weakness. The GAO recommended that the agency reevaluate cost and technical proposals, and past performance, as well as conduct discussions with WPS regarding the appeals area of adverse past performance. The agency should then obtain revised proposals and make a new selection decision.

If an offeror submits proposals for separate solicitations related to similar procurements, such as solicitations to provide the same services in different jurisdictions, the offeror should make sure that its proposal adequately accounts for differences in cost and technical proposals should the offeror be awarded contract for multiple jurisdictions versus a single jurisdiction. A proposal for a single jurisdiction should not rely on cost efficiencies resulting from multi-jurisdiction award, but provide for differing costs for each scenario and account for these differences throughout the proposal. Failure to properly detail all relevant scenarios in both cost and technical proposals could result at a minimum in the assessment of a weakness and at worst in the determination that the proposal is technically unacceptable.

Share

Related Posts

Matter of: Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.

May 27, 2021

Matter of AECOM Management Services, Inc.

July 7, 2020

Matter of Information International Associates, Inc.

December 6, 2019

In the Matter of: Scope Infotech, Inc.

March 27, 2018

Comments are closed

Search Bid Protest Weekly

Need help with a bid protest?

Call us at: 703-556-0411 Or fill out this form:

Categories

  • 8(a) Sole Source Awards
  • Acknowledging Amendments
  • Adequately Written Proposal
  • Adverse Agency Action
  • Adverse Impact Analysis
  • Agency Tender
  • Alternate or Previously-Approved Product
  • Ambiguity in Solicitation
  • Attorney's Fees
  • Bad Faith in Evaluation
  • Below-Cost Offer
  • Best Value
  • Beyond the Scope
  • Bias
  • Bid and Proposal Costs
  • Bid Bond
  • Bid Compliance
  • Bid Protest Decisions
  • Bid Protest Jurisdiction
  • Bid Protests
  • Bidding Best Practices
  • Blanket Purchase Agreement
  • Blanket Purchase Order
  • Blog Articles
  • Bona Fide Needs Rule
  • Brand Name or Equal
  • Broad Agency Announcement
  • Brooks Act
  • Bundling or Consolidation
  • Buy American Act
  • Cancellation of a Solicitation
  • Capability of Contractor
  • CCR Registration
  • Certificate of Competency (COC)
  • Certification Requirements
  • Changes Clause
  • Clarifications
  • Clear and Convincing Evidence
  • Clearly Meritorious Protest
  • Clerical Error
  • Commercial Item Acquisition
  • Competitive Range
  • Compliance
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Construction Design-Build
  • Construction Services
  • Contract Administration
  • Contract Modifications
  • Contracting Preference
  • Contractor Responsibility
  • Corporate Capability
  • Corrective Action
  • Cost Accounting System
  • Cost Evaluation
  • Cost Realism
  • Cost Reimbursement Contract
  • Cost-Technical Trade-Off
  • Customary Commercial Practice
  • CVE
  • DCAA Audit
  • Debriefing
  • Default Termination
  • Deficient Price Proposal
  • Delivery Order jurisdiction
  • Delivery Schedule
  • Designated Employee Agent
  • Disclosure of Price
  • Disclosure of Source Selection-Sensitive Information
  • Discussions
  • Disqualification
  • Documentation of Evaluation
  • Domestic Production Requirement
  • Education Center Articles
  • Electronic Filing
  • Evaluation Criteria
  • Evaluations
  • Events
  • Executive Order Compliance
  • Experience of Contractor
  • Experience Requirement
  • Fair Market Price
  • FASA
  • FedBizOpps
  • Federal Prison Industries (FPI)
  • Filing Deadlines
  • Final Evaluation
  • Final Proposal Revisions
  • Financial Responsibility
  • Fixed Price Contract
  • Former Government Employees
  • FSS Contract
  • GAO Bid Protest Review
  • GAO Jurisdiction
  • GAO Standard of Review
  • Government Contracts
  • Government Office Closings
  • Government Surplus Material
  • GSA Lease
  • HUBZone
  • ID/IQ
  • In-Sourcing
  • Incentive Fee
  • Inclement Weather Delay
  • Incomplete Proposal
  • Incorporation by Reference
  • Incumbent Capture
  • Incumbent Status
  • Independent Government Estimate (IGE)
  • Individual Environmental Report
  • Industrial Mobilization
  • Innovations
  • Interested Party
  • Invitation for Bid
  • Invited Contractor
  • Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act
  • Joint Venture
  • Key Personnel
  • Labor Hours
  • Labor Rate Pricing
  • Late Proposals
  • Late Submissions
  • Level of Effort
  • Licensing Requirements
  • Limitation on Subcontracting
  • Liquidated Damages
  • Lost Proposal
  • Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
  • Mail-Box Rule
  • Management Planning
  • Market Research
  • MAS Contracts
  • Material Misrepresentation
  • Material Solicitation Amendment
  • Material Solicitation Terms
  • Meaningful Discussions
  • Micro-Purchase Threshold
  • Minimum Requirements
  • Misleading Discussions
  • Mistake
  • Mitigation Strategy
  • Multiple Awards
  • NAICS Code
  • National Security
  • Negotiation
  • News
  • Non-Procurement Instruments
  • Novations
  • Offeror Representations
  • OMB Circular A-76
  • Option Exercise
  • Oral Presentations
  • Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)
  • Page Limitations
  • Past Performance
  • Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)
  • Performance Based Standards
  • Permits and Responsibilities
  • Personal Conflicts of Interest
  • Post-Award Changes to the Contract
  • Post-Protest Re-Evaluations
  • Practicable Alternative
  • Pre-Award Protest
  • Pre-award vs. Post-award Requirements
  • Pre-Qualification of Offerors
  • Pre-Solicitation Notice
  • Prejudice
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Calculation Error
  • Price Evaluation
  • Price of FSS Task Order Quote
  • Price Realism
  • Price Reasonableness
  • Price Reduction
  • Procurement Announcement
  • Procurement Integrity
  • Product Testing
  • Proposal Acceptance Period
  • Proposal Detail
  • Proposal Evaluation
  • Proposal Extension
  • Proposal Standards
  • Proposals
  • Protest Terms of Solicitation
  • Protester Comments
  • Public-Private Competition
  • Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA)
  • Rate Tenders
  • Re-Certification of Size Status
  • Reconsideration
  • Reevaluation
  • Reevaluation Standards
  • Reimbursement of Protest Costs
  • Rejection of Proposal
  • Relaxation or Waiver of Requirement
  • Relevancy of Past Performance
  • Reliance on the Proposal
  • Remedies
  • Requirements Contract
  • Responsibility
  • Responsiveness
  • Restricted Competition
  • Resumes
  • Revision of Proposal
  • Revision of Proposals
  • Risk
  • Rule of Two
  • SBA Status protest
  • Scope of GAO Review
  • SDVOSB Set-Asides
  • Significant Issue Exception
  • Simplified Acquisition Procedures
  • Site Visit
  • Size Determination
  • Size Protest
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
  • Small Business Set-Asides
  • Small Business Subcontracting Goals
  • Sole-Source Award
  • Solicitation Amendment
  • Solicitation Requirements
  • Source Approval
  • Source Selection Authority
  • Source Selection Decision
  • Source Selection Plan
  • Sources Sought Notice
  • Staffing Plan
  • State and Local Requirements
  • Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)
  • Subcontract Protest
  • Subcontractor Experience
  • Suspension and Debarment
  • Taking Exception to RFP Requirements
  • Task Orders
  • Teaming Agreement
  • Technical Acceptability
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Technical Evaluation
  • Termination of Award
  • Terms of the Solicitation
  • Timeliness of Protest
  • Timely Filing
  • Timely Performance
  • Timely Proposal Submission
  • Trade Agreement Act
  • Unbalanced Pricing
  • Unduly Restrictive Terms
  • Unequal Access to Information
  • Unequal Treatment of Offerors
  • Uniform Time Act of 1996
  • Unstated Evaluation Criteria
  • Unusual and Compelling Urgency
  • Use of Appropriated Funds
  • Veterans First
  • VIP Database
  • VOSB Set Asides
  • Wage Determination

Get Help


Talk to an
attorney who
specializes
in bid protests:

+1-571-223-6845
Email

Keep up to date
on bid protest
decisions and
policies:

© 2022 Bid Protest Weekly

  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Bid Protest Ed Center
    • WHAT is a bid protest?
    • WHO can file a bid protest
    • DO I need an Attorney?
    • WHY Should you file a bid protest?
    • WHEN Must you file a bid protest?
    • WHERE can you file a bid protest?
    • READING the RFP
  • Blog
  • Topics
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • LinkedIn
  • Google +
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

+1-571-223-6845