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.