TITLE:  Unisys Corporation, B-292679; B-292679.4, November 21, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-292679; B-292679.4
DATE:  November 21, 2003
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Unisys Corporation

   File:            B-292679; B-292679.4

   Date:              November 21, 2003

   E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., and Lisa M. Norrett, Esq., McKenna Long &
Aldridge, and Charlotte D. Young, Esq., Unisys Corporation, for the
protester.

   Steven S. Diamond, Esq., Walter F. Zenner, Jr., Esq., Marc A.
Stanislawczyk, Esq.,

   W. Susanne Addy, Esq., Waltraut S. Addy, Esq., and Joseph M. Catoe, Esq.,
Arnold & Porter, for Wisconsin Physicians Service Insurance Corporation,
an intervenor.

   Ellen C. Bonner, Esq., and Michael E. Jonasson, Esq., Department of
Defense, Tricare Management Agency, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1.  Agency reasonably evaluated protester's proposal as "high" risk, based
on protester's proposal of staffing levels that were significantly lower
than historical levels, and protester's failure to meaningfully explain
how it would successfully perform the contract requirements with the level
of staff proposed. 2.  Agency's discussions with protester were meaningful
and adequate where agency provided written discussion questions to
protester that reasonably identified the agency's concerns, and
subsequently conducted oral discussions during which the agency expanded
on the identified concerns. 3.  In procurement where non-price factors
were significantly more important than price, agency's price/technical
tradeoff was reasonable and adequately documented where source selection
decision memorandum expressly acknowledges protester's price advantage,
references multiple evaluated strengths in the awardee's proposal, and
concludes that the higher price is more than justified by the technical
superiority of awardee's proposal.

   DECISION

   Unisys Corporation protests the Department of Defense (DOD), Tricare
Management Agency's (TMA) award of a contract to Wisconsin Physicians
Service Insurance Corporation (WPS) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
MDA906-02-R-0007.  This solicitation sought proposals to provide health
care claims processing and related services for military members, and
their dependents, who are eligible for both Medicare and Tricare
benefits.  Unisys challenges various aspects of the agency's source
selection process, including the evaluation of proposals under various
technical evaluation subfactors, the adequacy of discussions, and the
adequacy of support for the agency's price/technical tradeoff.

   We deny the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   DOD provides health care to active-duty and retired members of the seven
uniformed services, and to their dependents, through an extensive network
of military treatment facilities (MTFs), supplemented by a network of
civilian health care providers operating under managed care support (MCS)
contracts with DOD.  In the early 1990s, DOD implemented the Tricare
program, which provides three basic health care options:  a managed care
program, a preferred-provider option, and a fee-for-service option.  The
total number of beneficiaries currently eligible for Tricare coverage is
approximately 8.7 million.  A portion of these beneficiaries
(approximately 1.5 million) is also entitled to receive Medicare benefits
due to their age (65 or older) or poor health; this portion of the
beneficiary population is generally referred to as "dual eligible"
beneficiaries.

   Prior to October 2001, Tricare beneficiaries who became eligible for
Medicare lost their eligibility for Tricare coverage.  Effective October
2001, Congress enacted legislation, commonly referred to as "Tricare for
Life" (TFL), which restored Tricare coverage for Tricare beneficiaries who
are also eligible for Medicare.  Under the statutory scheme, Medicare
coverage is primary and Tricare coverage is secondary.[1] 

   In response to the TFL legislation, DOD modified the then-ongoing MCS
contracts to incorporate claims processing services for the dual eligible
beneficiary population.  Pursuant to these modifications, WPS, acting as a
subcontractor to an MCS prime contractor, has been processing a portion of
the dual eligible beneficiary claims; Unisys has had no involvement in
claims processing under the MCS contracts.  

   The prior MCS contracts have expired or will expire soon, and have been or
will be replaced by the "next generation" of Tricare contracts, frequently
referred to as "T-Nex" contracts.  In replacing the expiring contracts,
and as a part of a broader transformation of DOD's military health care
system, DOD has made various program changes, including consolidation of
its current eleven Tricare regions into three regions.  Further, unlike
the prior MCS contracts that incorporated various unique services
performed by specialized subcontractors, DOD has elected to "carve out"
such services for separate, nationwide contracts.  The contract at issue
here, which requires performance of claims processing services for the
"dual eligible" beneficiary population (generally referred to as the
"Tricare Dual Eligible Fiscal Intermediary Contract" or "TDEFIC") is one
such contract.           

   The TDEFIC solicitation was issued in September 2003 and sought proposals
for a fixed-unit-priced requirements contract for a base period and five
option periods.  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 28.  Among other things, the
statement of work (SOW) calls for the successful offeror to timely and
accurately verify beneficiary eligibility; adjudicate, process and pay
beneficiaries' claims; accurately coordinate benefits available under
Tricare and Medicare; correctly apply deductibles, caps and co-payments;
and furnish the beneficiaries with explanations of the benefits provided. 
agency Report, Tab 1, at 19-25. 

   Section M of the solicitation provided that source selection would be
based on the proposal offering the best overall value to the government
and identified the following, equally weighted, evaluation
factors--technical merit, past performance, and price--reminding offerors
that the non-price factors combined were "significantly more important"
than price.  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 493.  Regarding technical merit, the
solicitation established the following equally weighted evaluation
subfactors--claims processing,[2] beneficiary/provider satisfaction,[3]
management approach,[4] transition in, and data access.[5]  Id.   Section
M of the RFP also expressly advised offerors that their technical
proposals would be evaluated, under each subfactor, with regard to
proposal risk and explained that the agency would assess the level of risk
associated with each proposed approach "as it relates to the successful
achievement of the Government's requirements or the degree to which the
Government must expend resources to monitor or manage the risk to avoid
unsuccessful performance." [6]  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 493. 

   Finally, with regard to price proposals, each offeror was required to
propose, by contract period, fixed claims processing rates (separate rates
for electronic and paper claims), a fixed price for administration, and
fixed prices for transitioning in and transitioning out.  Section B of the
RFP provided estimated quantities, by contract period, regarding
electronic and paper claims; section M of the
RFP advised the offerors that the evaluated price for claims processing
for each period would be calculated by multiplying the proposed rates by
the corresponding volume estimates and that the offeror's total price
would be calculated by summing the evaluated prices for each contract
period.  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 496.

   The agency received initial proposals from Unisys, WPS, and a third
offeror by the February 12, 2003 closing date.[7]  Each offeror
subsequently made an oral presentation to the agency, relying on slides
provided to the agency with the offeror's written proposal. 

   WPS's proposed approach contemplated significantly higher staffing levels
than the staffing levels associated with Unisys's proposed approach.[8] 
In evaluating the claims processing staff in Unisys's initial proposal,
the SSET noted that Unisys's proposed staffing was "approximately
[deleted] of what was expected."[9]  Agency Report, Tab 50, at 258. 
Consistent with its low staffing, Unisys proposed a performance approach
that emphasized "auto-adjudication" of claims.[10]  Protest at 5. 
Similarly, Unisys's proposal was based on the premise that a significant
portion of beneficiary calls would be handled through interactive voice
response (IVR),[11] and would not involve any human interaction between
Unisys and the beneficiaries.[12] 

   In contrast, WPS's proposed approach, supported by its higher staffing
levels, contemplated significant human interaction with the Tricare
beneficiaries, proposing that its staff would act as "advocates" for the
beneficiaries, taking the lead in coordinating communication between the
beneficiaries, health care providers, Medicare contractors, and other
health insurance carriers.  Further, WPS proposed to provide significant
training for its staff, including training related to the Medicare
program, to facilitate its advocacy approach.  Agency Report, Tab 14,
atA 117, 119, 126, 138, 143, 165. 

   In evaluating Unisys's proposal with regard to claims processing and
beneficiary/provider satisfaction, the SSET assigned "high" risk ratings
under each evaluation subfactor.  In doing so, the SSET expressed concern
that Unisys's proposed staffing levels "appear[ed] unrealistic" and,
further, expressed serious reservations regarding the level to which
Unisys relied on automation and IVR and anticipated more limited human
interaction.  Agency Report, Tab 50, at 258.  Finally, the agency
expressed concern that Unisys had not adequately explained the basis for
its staffing level calculations, noting:

   The problem with the Unisys proposal was that their single [staffing]
slide, consisting primarily of a chart showing total numbers of staff by
broad functional category, offered very little insight into how they
derived their numbers.  Although [the solicitation] called for a
"justified staffing model . . . ." the Unisys slide contains a total of
thirty-five words of explanation of the basis for their staffing.  These
consist of unelaborated statements, such as "Data entry experience from
other claims administration sites" with no explanation of what the
specific historical or expected productivity levels were.  The Unisys oral
presentation offered no additional insights, nor did the detailed staffing
breakouts which were submitted with the price proposal.

   Agency Report, Tab 38, at 137. 

   In contrast, the SSET viewed WPS's proposed advocacy approach, along with
the proposed training and higher staffing levels necessary to support that
approach, as a strength that exceeded the solicitation's requirements. 
Specifically, the SSET stated: 

   WPS' proposal to train customer service staff on Medicare benefits and to
allow their customer service staff to deal with Medicare and [MCS]
contractors on claims issues should increase beneficiary satisfaction . .
. .  WPS will also communicate to the beneficiaries and providers if their
claim was forwarded to Medicare for processing, rather than simply
returning the claim to the claimant for them to file it with Medicare,
thus increasing satisfaction and better informing the beneficiary of the
current status of their claim.

   Agency Report, Tab 49, at 256. 

   The SSET also noted that WPS had proposed various business processes to
save the government money, including recovery of improperly charged
"crossover fees" from Medicare contractors.[13]  Overall, the SSET
evaluated WPS's initial proposal as "blue/exceptional," with low proposal
risk, noting that its technical proposal was "extremely comprehensive" and
"exceeded RFP requirements in many respects."  Agency Report, Tab 46, at
208.  

   Based on the evaluation of initial proposals, the agency determined that
each of the three offerors were within the competitive range and that
discussions would be required.  Accordingly, discussions were thereafter
conducted, during which multiple matters requiring correction,
explanation, amplification, or clarification were brought to each
offeror's attention.  Agency Report, Tabs 101, 102, 103.  Specifically,
the agency provided Unisys with the following written questions, prior to
conducting oral discussions:

   Discuss how proposed staff will be able to handle projected claims
volume.  Discuss how staffing levels were derived to include key
assumptions.

   *     *    *     *     *  

   Discuss how proposed staff will be able to handle projected call volumes. 
Discuss how staffing levels were derived to include key assumptions.

   Agency Report, Tab 102, at 35, 39.

   During orals discussions, these questions were repeated.  Id. at 52, 60. 
Further, during oral discussions, the agency suggested that Unisys
consider whether additional staff would be required at the beginning of
the contract performance period due to initial inefficiencies.  Id. at
57. 

   Final proposal revisions (FPRs) were requested and submitted by April 28. 
These FPRs were subsequently evaluated by the SSET.  In addition, all of
the offerors' complete proposals were independently evaluated by TMA's
source selection authority (SSA).  Agency Report, Tab 21, at 5.  In
evaluating Unisys's FPR, the agency concluded that the proposed staffing
was still unrealistically low,[14] and that Unisys had not meaningfully
explained how it could successfully perform the contract requirements with
the staffing proposed.  Even more troublesome, the agency noted that
Unisys's FPR introduced "internal inconsistencies" regarding the level of
proposed staffing.[15]  Agency Report, Tab 23, at 35.

   Overall, the final ratings of both proposals remained the same, including
the agency's assessment of high risk for Unisys's proposal with regard to
claims processing and beneficiary/provider satisfaction.  The final agency
ratings for WPS's and Unisys's proposals were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|A                           |WPS                  |UNISYS               |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Technical Merit             |Blue/Exceptional     |Green/Acceptable     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|                            |Low Risk             |Moderate Risk        |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|  --Claims Processing       |Blue/Exceptional     |Blue/Exceptional     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|                            |Low Risk             |High Risk            |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|  --Beneficiary/Provider    |Blue/Exceptional     |Blue/Exceptional     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|    Satisfaction            |Low Risk             |High Risk            |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|  --Management Approach     |Green/Acceptable     |Green/Acceptable     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|                            |Low Risk             |Low Risk             |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|  --Transition In           |Blue/Exceptional     |Green/Acceptable     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|                            |Low Risk             |Low Risk             |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|  --Data Access             |Blue/Exceptional     |Green/Acceptable     |
|                            |                     |                     |
|                            |Low Risk             |Low Risk             |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Past Performance            |Confidence           |Confidence           |
|----------------------------+---------------------+---------------------|
|Evaluated Price             |$486,918,518         |[deleted]            |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Agency Report, Tab 21, at 15; Tab 23, at 44.

   In the source selection decision memorandum, the source selection
authority (SSA) summarized the agency's concerns with Unisys's proposal,
stating: 

   In its proposal[,] Unisys' assertion that efficiencies make it possible to
process more claims with the same amount of people is not supported by any
additional information.  The concern about the adequacy of the total staff
numbers as well as the low number of claims processing staff . . . results
in a [high] Proposal Risk Rating [under the claims processing subfactor.]

   *     *     *     *    *

   The continued increased reliance on IVR technology, combined with the
inadequate staff numbers dedicated to the [contract's] Customer Service
[requirements] results in the High Risk rating for [beneficiary and
provider satisfaction].

   Agency Report, Tab 21, at 10-11.

   The SSA also summarized the evaluated strengths associated with WPS's
proposal, stating:

   [WPS] proposes several business processes to save the Government money. .
. . The staff training, workload management, and ongoing evaluation by a
service quality team, work synergistically to provide the foundation for
WPS' commitment to have a responsive staff readily available for both
beneficiaries and providers.  The staffing in the WPS proposal shows that
WPS has taken into account any potential new work for T-Nex and has a plan
to meet all its commitments.

   *    *    *     *    *

   I found WPS to rank above Unisys [with regard to past performance] .A .A .
because [Unisys's] Past Performance evaluations were primarily focused on
their approach to information systems, and their relevant experience to
this solicitation was not as extensive as [WPS's experience]. 

   Agency Report, Tab 21, at 13-17.

   Finally, the SSA compared the various distinguishing aspects of WPS's and
Unisys's proposals, stating:

   WPS is the best proposal because they have synergy between their proven
automation systems and their customer service approach.  Their customer
service approach combines state of the art technology with a sufficient
number of highly trained Customer Service Representatives. . . .  [In
contrast, Unisys] promote[s] technology rather than personal interaction
to serve the beneficiary.  This could cause confusion and dissatisfaction
because of the inability of the elderly beneficiary to readily access a
live Customer Service Representative. 

   *     *     *     *     *

   The WPS approach will bring a high degree of satisfaction to all the
Government's customers--the beneficiaries, the providers, and the
uniformed services.  The beneficiaries' expectations for claims processing
will be satisfied by a personalized approach supported by technology that
supports claims processing for both [Tricare] and for Medicare.   The
beneficiaries will be further served by the appeal of Tricare for Life to
providers who will benefit from the prompt and accurate claims payments. 
The Uniformed Services will enjoy the reputation earned from taking the
best care of those who provided long and distinguished service to their
country. 

   *     *     *     *     *

   In conclusion, it is my decision that WPS represents the overall best
value to the Government.  I have carefully considered the additional price
the Government will pay for awarding the contract to WPS. . . . I have
determined the additional price . . . is more than justified by the
superior technical performance, and WPS's outstanding past performance.

   Agency Report, Tab 21, at 20-25.

   A contract was awarded to WPS on July 29.  This protest followed. 

   DISCUSSION

   Unisys first protests the agency's assessment of high proposal risk under
the technical evaluation subfactors for claims processing and
beneficiary/provider satisfaction.  Unisys does not dispute that, due to
its proposed reliance on auto-adjudication and IVR, its proposed approach
anticipates significantly lower staffing levels than those employed under
the predecessor MCS contracts.  Nonetheless, Unisys asserts that the
agency improperly evaluated its proposal by failing to recognize that
"[Unisys's proposal of] fewer human interfaces was a significant benefit
[to the government]."  Protest at 5. 

   The agency responds that assessment of high risk was appropriate because
of Unisys's extremely low proposed staffing levels, as well as its failure
to offer any meaningful explanation regarding the basis for its staffing
calculations.  As noted above, Unisys's entire explanation of its claims
processing staffing in its initial proposal consisted of a single
presentation slide showing little more than total staffing broken down by
broad categories.  Even following discussions, during which the basis for
its staffing calculations were specifically identified as an agency
concern, Unisys offered no meaningful explanation regarding the basis for
its calculations; for example, the agency notes that Unisys declined to
provide any information regarding Unisys's historical productivity
levels.  Regarding Unisys's assertion that [deleted] percent of all calls
would be handled to completion using IVR, the agency notes that Unisys's
underlying assumptions are flawed.  Specifically, Unisys advised the
agency that it relied on its experience with the "1-800-Medicare"
information line where, Unisys maintains, [deleted] percent of all calls
are handled through to completion by IVR.  However, the agency notes, and
Unisys does not dispute, that the "1-800-Medicare" line provides only
general answers to frequently asked Medicare questions--not answers to
claim-specific questions.  The agency states that, in handling
claim-specific questions, significantly greater human intervention is
required.  In short, the agency maintains that its high risk assessments
were appropriate because "Unisys's proposal simply assumed that its
automated approach was so unique and so different from that of everyone
else in the industry that it could achieve the requisite efficiencies in
some unspecified manner."[16]  Agency Report atA 23. 

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, GAO will not reevaluate offerors'
proposals, but rather will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
criteria and with procurement statutes and regulations.  Encorp-Samcrete
Joint Venture, B-284171, B-284171.2, Mar.A 2, 2000, 2000 CPD P 55 at 4.
The offeror has the burden of submitting a proposal that meets or exceeds
the solicitation requirements, and mere disagreement with an agency's
judgments regarding these matters is insufficient to establish that the
agency acted unreasonably.  PEMCO World Air Servs., B-284240.3 et al.,
Mar. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD P 71 at 15.

   The solicitation here required that offerors propose to provide not only a
"world-class claims processing system," but also "customer friendly"
services.  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 19.  Among other things, the
solicitation provided that the agency would evaluate "modes of access
[and] staffing," and would "look at contractor processes to assure prompt,
accurate, and friendly response to customer questions and problems." 
Agency Report, Tab 1, at 476, 494.  Based on Unisys's proposed level of
staffing, along with its failure to meaningfully explain how it would
perform the solicitation requirements--including those related to
"customer friendly" services--with the staffing levels proposed, we find
no basis to question the reasonableness of the agency's high risk
assessment regarding Unisys's proposal.  Unisys's protest that the
agency's risk assessments were unreasonable is denied.[17] 

   Next, Unisys protests that the agency improperly rated WPS's proposal as
superior to Unisys's with regard to the solicitation's data access and
transitioning requirements, complaining that "in both [evaluation]
categories, Unisys and WPS provided clearly comparable proposals." 
Protest at 7.  We disagree.

   With regard to data access, both WPS and Unisys proposed to provide access
to the points specifically designated in the solicitation.[18]  However,
WPS's proposal was rated higher because it offered additional benefits. 
Specifically, WPS proposed to provide access to regional directors and
intermediate services commands.  Further, WPS proposed to host
"semi-annual discovery meetings with government representatives" in order
to "address the usability of the existing tools, define desired
enhancements and plan deliverables," explaining that "[w]orking together
we will be able to refine the portals, reports and query capabilities." 
Agency Report, Tab 14, atA 310. 

   The agency viewed WPS's identification of additional, specified data
access points and the proposed customer-oriented "discovery meetings," as
enhancements that exceeded the solicitation requirements in a beneficial
manner.  Regarding the "discovery meetings," one evaluator noted:  "The
fact that WPS offers to host semi-annual discovery meetings with
government partners demonstrates their willingness to furnish ongoing
customer support tailored to user needs that may evolve over the course of
the contract."  Agency Report, Tab 54, at 179.

   With regard to the solicitation's transition-in requirements, the agency
viewed Unisys's proposal as presenting a transition plan with sufficient
detail to meet the solicitation requirements.  However, the agency viewed
WPS's transition plan as not only meeting, but significantly exceeding the
solicitation requirements.  In addition to providing substantial detail
beyond that minimally required, WPS's proposal addressed potential risks
and problem areas and formulated specific solutions, in particular
identifying potential disruptions in service to beneficiaries and
providers and identifying proposed strategies to minimize their effect. 
Agency Report, Tab 34, at 131; Tab 21, at 21.  Overall, the agency found
WPS's proposal to be comprehensive, detailed and proactive, and concluded
that, in particular, WPS's proactive approach exceeded the solicitation
requirements.  Id.

   Consistent with GAO's standard of review, noted above, we did not
reevaluate the offerors' proposals, but rather examined the agency's
evaluation record to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and
consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria and with
procurement statutes and regulations.  Based on our review of the entire
record in this matter, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of
the agency's judgments that WPS's proposal to provide additional data
access to certain designated points that were not required by the
solicitation, and to host customer-oriented "discovery meetings," along
with its proactive approach to contract transition, exceeded the stated
solicitation requirements in a manner reasonably deemed beneficial to the
agency.    

   Next, Unisys protests that the discussions the agency conducted with
Unisys were inadequate and provided less detail than the discussions the
agency conducted with WPS.  More specifically, Unisys complains that the
agency's identification of its concerns regarding Unisys's low staffing
did not provide as much guidance to Unisys as the agency's discussions did
with regard to WPS's price.[19]

   The FAR requires that agencies conduct discussions with each competitive
range offeror regarding "deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and adverse
past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an
opportunity to respond."  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S
15.306(d).  While offerors must be given equal opportunities to revise
their proposals and one offeror may not be favored over another, see
Chemonics Int'l, Inc., B-282555, July 23, 1999, 99-2 CPD PA 61,
discussions need not be identical; rather, discussions are to be tailored
to each offeror's proposal.  WorldTravelService, B-284155.3, Mar. 26,
2001, 2001 CPD P 68 atA 5-6. 

   Here, as noted above, the agency provided Unisys with specific and direct
written questions that focused on Unisys's proposed staffing levels as
they separately related to both performance of claims processing functions
and handling beneficiary calls, and requested that Unisys provide
information regarding how its staffing levels were derived, including
identification of its key assumptions.  Agency Report, Tab 102, atA 35,
39.  These questions were subsequently repeated during oral discussions,
during which the agency elaborated on its concerns, suggesting that Unisys
might consider providing more staffing at the beginning of the contract
performance period.  Agency Report, Tab 102, at 57.  Based on this record,
it is clear the agency identified its concerns regarding Unisys's low
proposed staffing levels and the agency's need for an explanation
regarding the bases for the firm's calculations.  On this record, the
agency complied with its obligation to conduct meaningful discussions. 
Further, we have reviewed the substance of the agency's discussions with
WPS and find no meaningful distinction in the level of guidance provided
to either offeror.  Accordingly, Unisys's protest that the agency's
discussions were inadequate or unfair is without merit.

   Finally, Unisys asserts that the SSA failed to perform a reasoned
price/technical tradeoff, arguing that the record reflects inadequate
documentation regarding the distinctions between the two proposals.  We
disagree.

   The propriety of a procuring agency's source selection decision turns, not
on whether our Office agrees with the source selection official's
judgment, but on whether that judgment is reasonable and is adequately
documented.  Cygnus Corp., B-275181, Jan. 29, 1997, 97-1 CPD P 63 at 11. 
While adjectival ratings and point scores are useful guides, they
generally are not controlling; rather, a price/technical tradeoff decision
must be supported by documentation addressing the relative differences
between proposals, their strengths, weaknesses and risks.  Century Envtl.
Hygiene, Inc., B-279378, June 5, 1998, 98-1 CPD P 164 at 4.

   Here, as discussed above, the solicitation advised offerors that, in
making the source selection decision, past performance and the technical
evaluation subfactors combined would be "significantly more important than
price."  Accordingly, the SSA gave WPS's evaluated advantages with regard
to the non-price factors significantly more weight than Unisys's price
advantage.  As discussed above, the record provides more than adequate
support for the agency's conclusion that WPS's proposed approach, which
contemplates higher staffing levels and more extensive training, will
provide more personal interaction and greater support and satisfaction for
the "dual eligible" population--the oldest and frailest portion of DOD's
beneficiary population--than Unisys's proposed approach, which relies
substantially on auto-adjudication of claims and IVR interaction with the
beneficiaries.  The record also reasonably supports the agency's
assessment that WPS's proposal was more advantageous with regard to data
access and transitioning requirements, and that WPS's more relevant past
performance was reasonably considered superior to Unisys's for purposes of
this procurement.  In making the source selection decision, the SSA
specifically referenced each of these factors and recognized the magnitude
of Unisys's price advantage, but concluded that WPS's higher price was
"more than justified" by its superiority with regard to the more important
non-price factors.  Agency Report, Tab 21, at 25.  On this record we find
no basis to question the reasonableness of the source selection decision.

   The protest is denied. [20]

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] Medicare and Tricare coverage differ in various ways.  The Medicare
program does not cover any costs for certain items of medical care covered
by Tricare and, for much of the medical care provided, Medicare requires
beneficiaries to share costs by means of co-payments and deductibles. 
Conversely, in a few instances, Medicare provides coverage where Tricare
does not. 

   [2] Under this subfactor offerors were advised that proposals would be
evaluated "on the effectiveness of the [proposed] approach for providing
timely and accurate processing of Tricare claims for medical care rendered
. . . includ[ing] compliance with the development, processing, medical
review and data record submission requirements of the Tricare Operations,
Policy, Reimbursement and Systems Manuals."  Agency Report, Tab 1,
atA 494. 

   [3] Under this subfactor offerors were advised that the agency would
evaluate "the offeror's ability to establish and maintain beneficiary and
provider satisfaction at the highest level possible . . . through the
delivery of customer friendly program services," and that the evaluation
would include, among other things, the proposed "modes of access [and]
staffing."  Id.   More  specifically, the solicitation stated: "evaluation
[under this subfactor] will look at contractor processes to assure prompt,
accurate, and friendly response to customer questions and problems." 
Agency Report, Tab 1, at 476. 

   [4] With regard to this subfactor, the solicitation provided, among other
things, that offerors must provide a "justified staffing model for each
activity (including staffing levels)."  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 477.

   [5] The agency's acquisition plan provided that technical proposals would
be evaluated under each subfactor, applying the following adjectival
ratings:  blue/exceptional (exceeds specified standards in a manner
beneficial to the government); green/acceptable (meets standards);
yellow/marginal (fails to meet standards, significant but correctable
weaknesses); and red/unacceptable (fails to meet standards, weaknesses are
uncorrectable without major proposal revision).  Agency Report, Tab 51, at
271.

   [6] In assessing proposal risk, the agency applied the following ratings: 
low (little doubt that offeror can execute the requirements using the
methods/techniques proposed); moderate (some doubt that offeror can
execute the requirements using the methods/techniques proposed); or high
(significant doubt that offeror can execute the requirements using the
methods/techniques proposed).  Agency Report, Tab 51, at 272. 

   [7]  The third offeror's proposal is not relevant to resolution of
Unisys's protest.  Accordingly, our decision here does not further discuss
that proposal.

   [8] The final evaluated staffing levels proposed by WPS under the contract
line item numbers (CLINs) for claims processing and administration
functions ranged from approximately [deleted] full time equivalent (FTE)
staff years to approximately [deleted]A FTEs.  Agency Report, Tab 39,
atA 143.  The final evaluated staffing levels proposed by Unisys under
those CLINs ranged from approximately [deleted] FTEs to approximately
[deleted] FTEs.  Id. 

   [9] In evaluating proposed staffing levels, the agency considered the
historical staffing levels employed by the MSC subcontractors who had
performed claims processing for dual eligible beneficiaries following
enactment of the TFL legislation.  Agency Report, Tab 21 at 9-10.

   [10] Unisys states:  "To auto-adjudicate means to process a claim without
manual intervention to a pay or deny status."  Protest at 5. 

   [11] IVR refers to the process in which a voice processing system prompts
the caller for information. 

   [12] Unisys's proposal stated, "Based on our experience in 1-800-Medicare,
we believe [deleted] of calls will be handled by the IVR."  Agency Report,
Tab 6 at 81.

   [13] As noted above, Medicare coverage is primary and Tricare coverage is
secondary.  In general, beneficiary claims must first be submitted to
Medicare for processing; these claims are then transmitted (usually
electronically), or "crossed over," to the Tricare contractor for
consideration of additional coverage; the Medicare contractor charges the
Tricare contractor a "crossover fee" for the administrative service of
forwarding the claim.  Some of the "crossover claims" have been
erroneously sent due to various errors on the part of the Medicare
contract.  WPS's proposal stated that it intended "to recover charges on
claims that should not have been crossed over."  Agency Report, Tab 14, at
66.

   [14] The average staffing level reflected in Unisys's FPR was still
approximately [deleted] of the combined staffing level the MCS
subcontractors had employed to perform claims processing following
enactment of the TFL legislation.  Agency Report, TabA 21, at 9-10.

   [15] Specifically, the agency explains that, although Unisys's staffing
charts indicated that [deleted] FTEs were being proposed to perform claims
processing during option yearA 1, (an increase of [deleted] FTEs from
Unisys's initial proposal), the narrative portion of Unisys's proposal
presented a lower number, stating:

   Unisys re-estimated the staffing levels need during the last 5 months of
Option Year 1 and the beginning of Option Year 2. . . .  Together, Unisys
will staff to a level of [deleted] Claims Processing staff in Option
YearA 1.

   Agency Report, Tab 12, at 13-14. 

   [16] The agency also notes that the above-referenced inconsistency within
Unisys's FPR regarding the level of staffing that Unisys was actually
proposing was an added basis for agency concern regarding the likelihood
of Unisys's successful contract performance.

   [17] Unisys also complains that the agency's assessments regarding
staffing were based on inaccurate assumptions regarding the volume and
type of claims (paper vs. electronic) that will be received.  However,
section B of the solicitation expressly disclosed the agency's estimates
in this regard.  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 17-18.  Accordingly, Unisys was
required to protest that aspect of the solicitation prior to the closing
date for submission of initial proposals.  4 C.F.R. S 21.2(a)(1) (2003). 
Its post-award protest raising those issues is untimely and will not be
considered.

   [18] The solicitation stated:  "Minimum access shall include two
authorizations [for access] at each MTF [military treatment facility], ten
authorizations at each Surgeon General's Office, two authorizations at
Health Affairs, two authorizations at TMA-Washington, two authorizations
at TMA-Aurora, and authorization(s) (not to exceed two) for on-site
Government representatives."  Agency Report, Tab 1, at 22.

   [19] Unisys specifically complains about the agency's following statement
to WPS during discussions:

   When we take your proposal in the context of the competition that has come
forward on this acquisition, as well as certain elements of the
independent cost estimate that the government has derived, your staffing
for claims processing, and therefore the attendant prices for that, seem
to be high.  We would encourage you to revisit that facet of your proposal
for final proposal revisions.

   Agency Report, Tab 101, at 19. 

   [20] In addition to the issues addressed in this decision, Unisys's
various protest submissions to our Office have challenged other aspects of
the agency's evaluation and source selection process.  We have considered
all of the issues raised by Unisys and conclude that none of them
constitute bases for sustaining the protest.