TITLE: B-299781, Healthcare Technology Solutions International, July 19, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299781
DATE: July 19, 2007
**********************************************************************
B-299781, Healthcare Technology Solutions International, July 19, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: Healthcare Technology Solutions International

   File: B-299781

   Date: July 19, 2007

   Samuel P. Fye for the protester.

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

   John L. Formica, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Agency reasonably selected higher-rated quotation under competitive
   procurement under Federal Supply Schedule program where price difference
   between the protester's and awardee's quotations was insignificant.

   DECISION

   Healthcare Technology Solutions International (HTSI) protests the
   establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with United Audit
   Systems, Inc. (UASI) under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS)
   contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. VA-528-07-RQ-0059,
   issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), New York, for off-site
   medical coding services for the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN)
   2 for upstate New York. [1] The protester asserts that the agency's
   evaluation of quotations and selection of UASI's quotation for the
   establishment of the BPA were unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFQ sought quotations for "medical coding services to be provided
   off-site (remotely) for coding (data validation and/or coding prior to
   bills being released) as needed." RFQ at 2. The solicitation informed
   vendors that "fluctuations in workload are expected based on the needs of
   VISN 2," and that the successful vendor will "provide all labor,
   materials, off-site computer equipment and supervision necessary to
   perform coding audits and retrospective review of [certain] outpatient
   encounters." RFQ at 2-3.

   The RFQ provided that access to the VISN 2 database "will be via VPN (VA
   Virtual Private network) through ISP (Internet Service Provider)," and
   that "[t]here are currently no restrictions on the ISP that may be used
   for this access." RFQ at 3. The solicitation added that the successful
   vendor's employees "requiring computer access" would be subject to a
   "background investigation and must receive a favorable adjudication from
   the VA Office of Security and Law Enforcement." RFQ at 3-4. The
   solicitation added here that the successful vendor's employees would be
   required to sign a specified VA "form before access codes are issued," and
   "undergo a New Employee/user information Security Awareness Orientation
   session and complete the annual Cyber Security on-line Course" prior to
   contract performance. RFQ at 3-4.

   The solicitation provided for the establishment of a BPA from the "date of
   award . . . through February 29, 2008 with the option to renew for an
   additional year." RFQ at 2. Vendors were instructed to "submit a detailed
   technical proposal," which addressed the following evaluation criteria,
   listed in descending order of importance:

    1. Experience and past performance with VA Contracts [40 points].
    2. Knowledge of [Veterans Health Administration] Coding practices
       [25 points].
    3. Knowledge of Quadramed/DSS Pro Fee Compliance Suite Software
       [20 points].[2]
    4. Credentials of employees [based upon certain specified coding]
       certifications [18 points].
    5. Plan to complete work within 72 hours from the date made available to
       the contractor [15 points].
    6. Confirm employees have high speed internet access [5 points].
    7. Confirm employees have One-VA VPN access [2 points].

   RFQ at 4-5; Agency Report (AR), Tabs 4 and 5, Technical Evaluation of
   HTSI's and UASI's Proposals.[3] Vendors were also requested to complete a
   price schedule by inserting unit and total prices based upon the agency's
   estimates of the coding services to be required. RFQ at 2.

   The agency received quotations from four vendors, including UASI and HTSI,
   and the quotations were forwarded to a technical evaluation team for
   review. AR at 3. UASI's quotation received a total of 113 out of 125
   points under the technical evaluation criteria, with a unit price of $4.25
   for the base and option periods and a total evaluated price of $365,500.
   AR, Tab 3, UASI's Quotation, at 2; Tab 6, Evaluation Summary. HTSI's
   quotation received a total of 84 points under the technical evaluation
   criteria, with unit prices of $4.25 for the base period and $4.21 for the
   option period, and a total evaluated price of $363,500. AR, Tab 2, HTSI's
   Quotation, at 2; Tab 6, Evaluation Summary. The agency regarded HTSI's
   price advantage as insignificant, noting that HTSI's quotation "would
   result in a savings of only 1% ($2,000) over the life of the contract,"
   and selected UASI's higher-rated quotation for issuance of the BPA. AR,
   Tab 7, Best Value Analysis, at 3. In doing so, the agency noted, among
   other things, that UASI had extensive experience working with VA and
   specifically with VISN 2, including the performance of 11 contracts for VA
   medical coding services. Id. at 2.

   The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of its and UASI's
   quotations was unreasonable. When an agency conducts a formal competition
   under the FSS program, we will review the agency's evaluation of vendor
   submissions to ensure that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent
   with the terms of the solicitation. SI Int'l, SEIT, Inc., B-297381.5;
   B-297381.6, July 19, 2006, 2006 para. CPD 114 at 11; COMARK Fed. Sys.,
   B-278343; B-278343.2, Jan. 20, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 34 at 4-5.

   The protester argues that UASI's proposal should have been downgraded by
   the agency because certain of the off-site coding services will be
   performed by UASI's employees from their homes. The protester asserts that
   the agency, in evaluating quotations, should have considered "the inherent
   weaknesses associated with [UASI] using coders located in their homes,"
   given what the protester argues are "the security associated with home
   coding." Protest at 6; Protester's Comments at 2. In this regard, the
   protester notes that it planned to perform the coding services at its
   "leased coding center located on the Wilkes-Barre [VA Campus]," where
   "[s]ecurity monitoring" is "provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week."
   AR, Tab 2, HTSI's Quotation, Technical Proposal, at 2.

   As the agency points out, the solicitation specifically provided for the
   performance of the coding services "off-site." There is nothing in the
   solicitation that provides or indicates any requirements regarding where
   "off-site" the services could be performed (such as at a personal
   residence), nor are any of the evaluation criteria set forth in the
   solicitation related to an assessment of the off-site location or facility
   proposed.[4] Accordingly, we cannot find that the agency acted
   unreasonably in not considering what the protester characterizes as "the
   inherent weaknesses associated with [UASI] using coders located in their
   homes," or the protester's asserted advantages in providing the services
   from its leased facility.[5] See Protest at 6.

   The protester argues that the agency unreasonably downgraded its quotation
   because the protester's quotation reflected that data entry staff would
   enter the codes rather than trained and certified coders. Protester's
   Comments at 3-4; AR, Tab 2, Protester's Quotation, at 6, 11; Tab 5,
   Technical Evaluation of HTSI's Quotation, at 1. The protester argues that
   "the only difference is that [UASI] is using coders as data entry staff to
   enter the codes and HTSI is using data entry staff to enter codes," and
   that because based upon the protester's "studies there is no difference in
   accuracy percentage when comparing coders used to enter codes and data
   entry staff who enter the codes," its quotation was unfairly evaluated in
   this regard. Protester's Comments at 4. The protester adds here that the
   agency's criticism of this aspect of its quotation, based upon the
   agency's understanding that "there is no way of knowing who actually
   encoded the encounter" for performance monitoring purposes, is
   unreasonable. As the protester explains, the identity of the individual
   who coded the encounter can be determined "from an open field in the
   Quadramed software where we enter who coded the record." Id. at 3-4; see
   AR, Tab 5, Technical Evaluation of HTSI's Quotation, at 1.

   The comments in the evaluation record that the protester argues are not
   reasonably based appear in part under the "Knowledge of [Q]uadramed/DSS
   Pro Fee Compliance suite software" and in part under the "Knowledge of VHA
   coding practices" evaluation criteria. AR, Tab 5, Technical Evaluation of
   HTSI's quotation. HTSI's quotation received scores of 18 out of 25 points
   under the "Knowledge of VHA coding practices" criterion and 6 out of 20
   points under the "Knowledge of [Q]uadramed/DSS Pro Fee Compliance Suite
   Software" criterion. Id. Accordingly, even assuming that HTSI's quotation
   should have received perfect scores of 25 and 20 points under these
   evaluation criteria, HTSI's quotation's total evaluated technical score
   would increase to 105 points, in comparison to UASI's quotation's total
   evaluated technical score of 113 points. This is so because the primary
   discriminator between the quotations, evaluated by the agency under the
   most heavily weighted "Experience and Past Performance with VA Contracts"
   criterion, is that UASI has successfully performed 11 contracts for VA
   involving off-site coding services, whereas HTSI has performed only 2
   contracts for VA, with only 1 of these contracts involving off-site coding
   services--a fact that HTSI has not challenged. Given UASI's evaluated
   technical superiority, even assuming that HTSI's quotation deserved full
   credit under the "Knowledge of VHA [C]oding [P]ractices" and the
   "Knowledge of Quadramed/DSS Pro Fee Compliance Suite Software" evaluation
   criteria, and what the agency reasonably regarded as an insignificant
   difference in price between the quotations ($363,500 v. 365,500 or less
   than 1 percent),[6] we see no reasonable possibility that HTSI's quotation
   would have been selected for the issuance of the BPA by the agency, even
   if these protest grounds were found to be meritorious. It necessarily
   follows that HTSI was not competitively prejudiced by any possible errors
   in the evaluation of its quotation. Our Office will not sustain a protest
   unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was
   prejudiced by the agency's actions, that is, unless the protester
   demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a
   substantial chance of receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126,
   Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher,
   102 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

   The protester finally claims that the information it was provided during
   its debriefing was inadequate as well as inconsistent with the evaluation
   record provided by the agency in its report submitted in response to this
   protest. The protester, in addition to protesting the adequacy of the
   debriefing, concludes, based upon its view that the debriefing was
   inconsistent with the evaluation record provided by the agency, that the
   agency "made up the [evaluation] criteria as they went [along] to justify
   a biased procurement." Protester's Comments at 3.

   Whether or not an agency provides a debriefing and the adequacy of a
   debriefing are issues that our Office will not consider, because the
   scheduling and conduct of a debriefing is a procedural matter that does
   not involve the validity of an award. The Ideal Solution, LLC, B-298300,
   July 10, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 101 at 3 n.2; see Symplicity Corp.,
   B-297060, Nov. 8, 2005, 2005 CPD para. 203 at 3 n.4. Additionally,
   prejudicial motives will not be attributed to contracting officials on the
   basis of unsupported allegations, inference, or supposition. McDonnell
   Douglas Corp., B-259694.2, B-295694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 51 at
   28. Based on our review, the protester's claims of bias here are not
   supported by the record and amount to nothing more than unsupported
   allegations or inferences, and thus will not be considered further.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] As defined by the agency, medical coding is the "assigning [of] codes
   to health care diagnoses and procedures which help in financial
   reimbursement from insurance companies." Agency Submission (July 10,
   2007).

   [2] The agency explains that Quadramed is a software package that
   interfaces with VA's Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology
   Architecture (VISTA), and that "[a]ll VA's are required to use the
   Quadramed software for coding." AR at 2 n.1.

   [3] The RFQ did not disclose the maximum points available under each
   criterion.

   [4] According to the agency, there is no agency policy prohibiting or
   restricting the performance of coding services from a personal residence.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 1; AR, Tab 13, E-mail (May 21, 2007)
   (no VA policy regarding "contract[ing] home coding services . . . exists
   and none is required.")

   [5] To the extent that the protester is arguing that the solicitation
   should have prohibited the performance of the coding services from
   personal residences because of what the protester believes are security
   concerns, its argument is untimely. Protests based upon alleged
   improprieties in a solicitation that are apparent prior to the closing
   time for receipt of proposals must be filed before that time. Bid Protest
   Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(1) (2007).

   [6] The protester questions whether it received full evaluation credit for
   its low price. However, another quotation (not HTSI's or UASI's) submitted
   the low price and received the maximum score. The price point scores
   awarded HTSI's and UASI's were almost identical because of the negligible
   price difference between the quotations.