Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation for a task order is denied, where the agency had no obligation to reconcile its evaluation under the subject procurement with one conducted under a previous task order solicitation, and where the agency did not conduct misleading discussions during its reasonable evaluation of proposals.

AdvancedMed Corporation protested the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’s award of a task order for Medicare and Medicaid program integrity services to Health Integrity, LLC, challenging the agency’s discussions and evaluation of proposals.

First, AdvancedMed complained that CMS failed to reconcile different evaluation conclusions between the procurement at issue and a previous task order competition among the same IDIQ contract holders. The protester further argued that CMS unreasonably assigned strengths to the awardee’s proposal, while downgrading its proposal for materially similar features.

AdvancedMed also argued that CMS improperly assigned a weakness to its key personnel and staffing plan, which proposed to decrease the number of labor hours during the option years.  To that end, the protester argued that CMS failed to reasonably consider that its proposed efficiencies justified the reductions, and that the agency should have specifically raised its concern in this regard during discussions. Finally, the protester complained that CMS unreasonably assigned a significant weakness to its past performance for failing to consistently meet small business subcontracting goals and failed to consider positive performance trends.

In response, CMS argued that it had no duty to reconcile evaluation findings for two task order procurements that were issued under two different solicitations several months apart. CMS also noted that it convened a separate technical evaluation panel to assess proposals.  CMS also maintained that during discussions it prompted the protester to explain its rationale for the proposed decrease in labor hours and documented why each of the protestor’s proposed innovations did not provide concrete, measurable, or objective justification for how it would maintain the workload during the option periods.

CMS also identified new issues with the purported efficiencies which warranted a technical weakness, including its concern with the proposed staffing where there was no anticipated decrease in the proposed workload during the option periods. Finally, CMS asserted that it reasonably considered assessed the totality of the protester’s past performance and was not obligated to consider draft CPARS reports showing performance improvements.

GAO denied the protest on all grounds, finding that in light of the different solicitations, different technical evaluation panels, and significant passage of time between the procurements, there was no reasonable basis to determine that CMS was required to reconcile alleged differences in its evaluations. GAO also found that the agency thoroughly discussed why AdvancedMed’s proposed innovations did not provide sufficient detail or justification to warrant the significant staffing decreases in the option years. Rather, the unsubstantiated efficiency gains were either illusory or increased the potential need for heightened government supervision.

Along those lines, GAO also determined that CMS adequately discussed its concerns about the protester’s staffing, and that removing the weakness would not have materially changed the relative competitive position of the parties. GAO concluded that resolving the significant weakness allegation was not necessary because the issue was not a factor in the selection decision and that there was no indication that AdvancedMed suffered any competitive prejudice from the alleged error.

AdvancedMed Corporation is represented by Daniel P. Graham, Tyler E. Robinson, Elizabeth Krabill McIntyre, and Caroline E. Colpoys of Vinson & Elkins LLP. Health Integrity LLC is represented by Daniel J. Kelly, David Himelfarb, Cara A. Wulf, and Matthew G. Dalton of McCarter & English, LLP. The government is represented by Lucy G. Mac Gabhann and Linda Santiago, Department of Health and Human Services. GAO attorneys Evan D. Wesser and Edward Goldstein participated in the preparation of the decision.