CrAssoc.s Inc v. The United States, 10-339C

• Decision Date: 04 October 2010
• Docket Number: No. 10-339C,10-339C
• Parties: CRASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

CRASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES, Defendant,
and
SPECTRUM HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, INC., Defendant-Intervenor.

No. 10-339C

United States Court of Federal Claims.

Filed: October 4, 2010
Reissued: October 20, 2010¹

Post-award bid protest; Cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record; Standard of review; 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-46-failure to comply with professional services clause; Probative weight to be given contracting officer's statement before the GAO; Price realism analysis; Technical evaluation; Inclusion of price information in the technical proposals; Staffing plan factor-failure to provide adequate explanation for weakness and adjectival rating; Facility layout factor-unequal treatment of offerors; Responsibility determination-reliance on "current" information; Organizational conflict of interest; Prejudice; Injunctive factors analyzed; Injunction warranted.

Kenneth Bernard Weckstein, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, LLP, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Jeffrey Andrew Regner, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom was Assistant Attorney General Tony West, for defendant.

Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Crowell & Moring, LLP, Washington, D.C., for defendantIntervenor.

OPINION

Page 2

ALLEGRA Judge:

This post-award bid protest is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. Plaintiff, CRAssociates, Inc. (CRA), challenges the U.S. Army's award of a contract to Spectrum HealthCare Resources (Spectrum) to provide community health care services to military personnel and their dependents in the National Capital Area (NCA). For the reasons that follow, the court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record and DENIES, in part, and GRANTS, in part, defendant's and defendant-intervenor's cross-motions. An appropriate injunction will issue.

1. BACKGROUND

The administrative record in this case reveals the following:

Plaintiff is currently furnishing health care services to military beneficiaries out of two Family Health Centers (FHCs) in Fairfax and Woodbridge, Virginia. These community-based FHCs provide family-centered primary care and some specialty care for a major segment of the NCA military population and their family members. As of March of this year, these facilities had over 47, 000 beneficiaries, generating 17, 000 clinic visits per month and 49, 000 pharmacy prescriptions per month. These clinics also provide a significant number of inpatient referrals to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Navy Medical Center.

On April 16, 2009, the Army issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. W81K04-09-R-0002, seeking a contractor to provide community-based primary and specialty health care services to eligible military beneficiaries. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, with cost reimbursement line items, for a six-month transition period, a one-year base period, and four one-year option periods. In responding to the solicitation, offerors were directed to submit an administrative proposal, a technical proposal, past/present performance information, a price proposal and a subcontracting plan. Regarding these documents, the RFP advised that "[a]ll documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the requirements of the RFP."² The RFP provided that the award of the contract would be on a negotiated, "best value" basis.

Page 3

A. The RFP

1. Proposal Requirements

The RFP required the contractor to provide all necessary facilities, maintenance, staffing, supplies and equipment for the two FHCs, known as FHC-North and FHC-South. The RFP listed the contract's required services and supplies in the form of contract line items (CLINs). The first two CLINs corresponded to the two FHCs, which were to be built during the six-month transition period. Other CLINs focused on primary and specialized health care services, including primary care and optometry clinics, a medical laboratory, physical therapy, a pharmacy, and numerous other specialized care services to be provided during the contract base period and all four option periods. The CLINs specified that the contractor would be responsible for providing all building leases, maintenance, and administrative support.

The RFP's Performance Work Statement (PWS) detailed the scope of services and specific requirements within each type of service. Regarding the two FHCs, the PWS stated "[e]ach clinic shall be designed to meet the scope of services outlined in the PWS, to maximize staff productivity and efficiency and, at a minimum, to support the current level of service represented in the existing clinics." It added that the contractor must provide "improved access [to] primary care appointing," which would guarantee patients same-day acute-care appointments under certain conditions. Regarding the health care concept embodied in its requirements, the PWS advised that "[t]his healthcare concept includes improved access to primary care appointing, individual provider and provider team empanelment with an emphasis on patient outcomes, continuity of care, and quality care as defined in the Joint Commission and TRICARE standards, and overall patient satisfaction."

The RFP laid out requirements for "Contractor Furnished Equipment," including the contractor-provided FHCs. Each FHC was required to be "no further than a 30 minute drive" from DeWitt Army Community Hospital. Facility location was also to take into account the location of other Department of Defense military treatment facilities and, in particular, "not encroach on other DOD clinics' population." In addition, facilities were required to "meet all state, county and federal laws/regulations governing construction, occupation, accessability, and maintenance of community health care facilities of this general nature and scope."

Technical proposals were to address various factors and subfactors relating to personnel; management plan; facility location and layout; staffing model; transition plan; quality control plan; and subcontracting opportunities. For factor 3, facility location and layout, the RFP instructed offerors to "[d]escribe the proposed clinic locations and layouts at each facility," including "site locations, traffic patterns, parking, entrances, energy savings objectives, etc." For factor 5, transition plan, the RFP apprised offerors as follows:

Provide a detailed transition plan on how you plan to prepare for full performance under the contract. Include a detailed milestone chart depicting recruitment, facility acquisition and facility preparation, training, transfer of [Government

Page 4

Furnished Equipment], patient notification, credentialing and all other actions needed to prepare for full performance. Discuss all resources and schedules.

For the past and present performance proposal, contractors were required to provide information regarding "all relevant contracts and subcontracts started or completed within the past three years" for the contractor and all subcontractors performing major or critical aspects of the work. The pricing proposal was required to contain "a unit price for each of the CLINs/subCLINs" and "a detailed cost element breakout for each of the line items." It was also to "include a narrative detailing the basis of the labor rates, facility costs and each cost element making up the total price," as well as a "comprehensive breakout of proposed staffing by category showing hours and labor rates."

B. Evaluation Criteria

The RFP directed the Contracting Officer (CO) to use a "Technical-Cost Trade-off process to determine which offer has the overall best value to the Government." The RFP indicated that the following factors and significant subfactors would be considered in making that best value determination:

Factors	Subfactors
1. Personnel	a. Recruitment b. Retention/Employee Relations c. Compensation Plan
2. Management Plan	a. Demand Management/Access to Care b. Education Programs c. Program Objectives
3. Facility Location & Layout
4. Staffing Model
5. Transition Plan
6. Quality Control Plan
7. Subcontracting Opportunities
8. Past & Present Performance
9. Price Proposal.

In addition, for large businesses, the CO was to consider the offeror's subcontracting plan. Regarding the relative importance of these factors and subfactors, the RFP...