HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadbox0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
G A 0Comptroller General
Accountability * Integrity * Reliability of the United States
United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Washington, DC 20548 The decision issued on the date below was subject to a
GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
approved for public release.
Decision
Matter of: CIGNA Government Services, LLC
File: B-401062.2; B-401062.3
Date: May 6, 2009
Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Shauna E. Alonge, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq.,
Peter Eyre, Esq., Sujata Sidhu, Esq., and Adelicia R. Cliffe, Esq., Crowell & Moring
LLP, for the protester.
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., Lindsay L. Turner, Esq., Dorthula H. Powell-Woodson, Esq.,
Brian Walsh, Esq., Daniel P. Graham, Esq., John W. Burd, Esq., Kathryn Bucher, Esq.,
and Baron A. Avery, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for Highmark Medicare Services, Inc., the
intervenor.
Krystal Jordan, Esq., and Douglas Kornreich, Esq., Department of Health and Human
Services, 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
1. Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where, after discussions had
concluded, it determined that certain of the protester's proposed costs, which were
set forth in the protester's initial and final revised proposals, were understated in
comparison with those proposed by other offerors, and the agency adjusted the most
probable cost estimate associated with the protester's costs upwards rather than
reopening discussions to allow the protester an opportunity to address the issue.
2. Agency's consideration of the awardee's proposed subcontractor's past
performance in its evaluation of the awardee's proposal under the solicitation's past
performance factor was not reasonable where the solicitation provided for the
consideration of the past performance of significant or critical subcontractors,
and the record does not evidence that the subcontractor could properly be
considered critical or significant, given that the costs associated with the
subcontractor's performance total [DELETED] percent of the total costs associated
with the awardee's performance of the contract.
3. The agency's evaluation of the protester's proposal and source selection for one
of the awards contemplated under the solicitation cannot be considered reasonable
where the protester, in response to the same solicitation but for a different award,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadbox0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)