TITLE: B-296489, Digital Healthcare, Inc., August 24, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296489
DATE: August 24, 2005
***************************************************
B-296489, Digital Healthcare, Inc., August 24, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Digital Healthcare, Inc.

   File: B-296489

   Date: August 24, 2005

   Hilary S. Cairnie, Esq., Melissa M. Nichols, Esq., and Adrien C. Pickard,
   Esq., Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLP, for the protester.

   Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Dennis Foley, Esq., and Philip Kauffman, Esq.,
   Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency.

   Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Allegation that agency misappropriated information contained in
   protester's unsolicited proposal and developed specifications based on
   that information is denied where protester has not met its burden of
   showing proprietary nature of information allegedly misappropriated.

   DECISION

   Digital Healthcare, Inc. protests the issuance of request for proposals
   (RFP) No. 500-20-05, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the
   acquisition of insurance identification services. Digital complains that
   the agency improperly used proprietary information contained in its
   unsolicited proposal in the current solicitation.

   We deny the protest.

   In June 2003, Digital submitted an unsolicited contract proposal to each
   of the federally funded health plan providers, including the Veterans
   Health Administration (VHA) indicating that it was the sole licensee of
   various intellectual properties governing the automation of the
   coordination of benefits (COB) among health plans, and other related
   procedures in the healthcare finance area. Unsolicited Proposal at 2.
   Digital stated that it was therefore uniquely situated to address VHA's
   need to identify and bill other sources of insurance coverage for VHA
   patients. Digital stated that its proposal differed from other approaches
   to the problem in that other vendors propose to "poll" a small number of
   local payers and that the proposal to poll only a handful of local payers
   will yield an improvement, but not a very good result relative to the
   automated polling of all payers. Digital identified a number of advantages
   to its automated COB process. Digital stated that no other system combined
   these functions. Digital further stated that its e-commerce process as
   described in its unsolicited proposal was proprietary to Digital by virtue
   of its patents, non-competition agreements, and other intellectual
   property.

   In November 2003, the VA responded to Digital and stated that its
   unsolicited proposal was not considered unique in nature. Agency Report
   (AR) Tab 3, Letter to Protester. Specifically, the agency concluded that
   the proposal itself indicated that these services are available from other
   companies albeit not to the scope Digital proposed. AR, Tab 3,
   Determination and Findings of Unsolicited Proposal. The agency also stated
   that the Digital proposal only contained "slight" details; there was no
   identification of purported patented application and according to letters
   from Digital's technical support, intellectual applications belong to
   third party holders. Id., encl., Determination of Unsolicited Proposals.

   After receipt of a request for the acquisition of insurance identification
   services, the VA contracting officer conducted a market survey to
   determine whether potential service disabled veteran owned, small business
   firms with either General Service Administration or VA Federal Supply
   Schedule contracts were available to supply the requirement as a
   commercial item. Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. The contracting
   officer received several responses from potential sources for the required
   services. On April 12, 2005, request for quotations No. 500-14-05 was
   issued to all vendors who responded to the market survey. However, all
   responses to that solicitation were rejected on the basis that they did
   not meet the minimum requirements. The agency subsequently cancelled that
   solicitation and revised the requirement.

   On April 29, 2005, the current RFP was issued for the award of a
   fixed-price, indefinite-quantity/indefinite-delivery services contract for
   a base year with two 1-year option periods. The services described by the
   solicitation were as follows:

   The overall scope of services is the establishment of an off-site
   insurance identification unit. Its purpose shall be to identify insurance
   for veterans without insurance or unknown insurance. Contractors should
   not contact insurance carriers directly and all identification efforts
   should be electronic to avoid damage to VA/carrier relationships which may
   occur due to sudden increased telephonic inquiry. No direct patient
   contact is to occur.

   RFP Sec. II, para. 2.

   The RFP further provided that the contractor would receive an electronic
   file on a routine basis (to be identified) and a listing of veterans with
   future clinical appointments that have no insurance identified. Other than
   detailing and emphasizing the necessity for contractors to protect
   sensitive data, the RFP did not identify or proscribe any particular
   methodology for the electronic identification of insurance carriers.
   Rather, it simply provided that the contractor would provide by the
   designated date of the month, all insurance identified for patient
   appointments for the previous month. RFP Sec. II, para. 4.

   Several proposals, including one from the protester, were received by the
   amended closing date of May 23, 2005. Included in Digital's proposal was a
   copy of its protest filed with our Office on May 20.

   Digital contends that the agency has made improper use of its proprietary
   material contained in its unsolicited proposal. Specifically, the
   protester maintains that the RFP copies from its unsolicited proposal the
   essential process of the electronic identification of all known insurance
   sources covering VA beneficiaries. Digital argues that the electronic
   polling of databases to identify insurance coverage is an element of its
   proprietary process.

   In protests of this nature the burden is on the protester to demonstrate
   by clear and convincing evidence that its proprietary rights have been
   violated. EDN Corp., B-225746.2, July 10, 1987, 87-2 CPD para. 31 at 3. To
   prevail on a claim of violation of proprietary rights, the protester must
   show that (1) its material was marked proprietary or confidential or that
   it was disclosed to the government in confidence, and (2) the material
   involved significant time and expense in preparation and contained
   material or concepts that could not be independently obtained from
   publicly available literature or common knowledge. Porta Power Pak, Inc.,
   B-196218, Apr. 29, 1980, 80-1 CPD para. 305 at 4. Commercial products, for
   instance, are not considered proprietary, NEFF Instrument Corp., B-216236,
   Dec. 11, 1984, 84-2 CPD para. 649 and neither are ideas or concepts which
   are obvious, and not innovative or unique. Chromalloy Div.--Oklahoma of
   Chromalloy Amer. Corp., B-187051, Apr. 15, 1977, 77-1 CPD para. 262.
   Moreover, the mere reformulation of a concept which is common knowledge
   cannot be proprietary unless the restatement represents a valuable
   contribution arising from the independent efforts of the claimant.
   Andrulis Research Corp., B-190571, Apr. 26 1978, 78-1 CPD para. 321 at 4.
   Finally, the value of proprietary information lies in its unique
   possession by the owner; once such information becomes public knowledge,
   its value and status as proprietary information is lost. Porta Power Pak,
   Inc., supra.

   Digital maintains that the key requirement of the RFP is the same key
   functional solution proposed by it in its unsolicited proposal, that being
   the electronic identification of all known insurance sources covering VA
   beneficiaries. Digital argues that the electronic polling of databases to
   identify insurance coverage is one element of its proprietary process.
   Digital maintains that the e-commerce process described in its unsolicited
   proposal is a trade secret because it qualifies as a method of doing
   business, has actual and potential value, and would be very valuable to
   Digital's competitors. Digital states that it has filed one or more patent
   applications on the methods that it has developed to conduct an e-commerce
   business that collects the relevant information necessary to identify
   primary and secondary coverage, and thereafter to bill and collect from
   those sources.

   Based on our review of the record, we find unconvincing Digital's claim
   that the agency improperly used proprietary information contained in the
   protester unsolicited proposal. As stated above, the protester must
   demonstrate that the information was marked proprietary and was provided
   to the government in confidence. As explained above, once proprietary
   information becomes public knowledge, it is no longer considered
   proprietary. A significant amount of the information in Digital's
   unsolicited proposal about its capabilities and approach to automation of
   the coordination of benefits among health plans, and related procedures is
   available to the public on Digital's website. Specifically, while it
   claims that the electronic polling of databases to identify insurance
   coverage is somehow proprietary to Digital, its website includes a
   discussion of its ability to "obtain the latest eligibility data from
   4,000 other payors" with its "automated COB process." Also on the website
   is a quote from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at a hearing
   before the Senate Finance Committee in 1995 that OMB envisions: "an
   on-line, up front query system in which the primary and secondary payors
   will be determined at or before the time that care is provided ..."