Protest Dismissed: CMS Health Insurance Exchange and Financial Management Operational Analytics contract

Updated October 31, 2024

The lone known GAO protest has been dismissed.

Updated October 3, 2024

After GAO sided with the protestor earlier this past Summer, the government worked to address the issues raised by taking corrective action. Post remedy, the green light was recently given by CMS to the Prime contractor that it could proceed, but it appears at least one challenger was not content with the steps taken by the government. A fresh protest has been filed which will ensure that GAO gets another look at this. No details have been provided as to the grounds for the challenge. More will be shared as it is made available.

Protester: A Square Group, LLC
Solicitation Number: RFQ-230314
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
File number: B-421792.4
Outcome: Dismissed
Decision Date: Oct 30, 2024

OS AI Note: Dismissed or Withdrawn does not necessarily mean resolved, and it can oftentimes indicate proactive steps taken by the government to address deficiencies or issues raised in the protest. More will be shared if it is made available. 

Track Related GAO Activity Here

Related

8(a) small business scores first Prime win, a $31M CMS Operational Analytics contract.

Updated June 21, 2024

DIGEST

1. Protest is sustained where the agency failed to reasonably consider the strategy proposed by the awardee to mitigate an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest.
2. Protest that the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s technical quotation was unreasonable is sustained where the record shows that, to mitigate an organizational conflict of interest, the awardee materially altered its technical approach, and the evaluation contains no evidence that the agency considered the impact of the changed approach on contract performance.

DISCUSSION

ASG challenges various aspects of the conduct of the procurement.7  As set forth below, we first sustain the protest on the basis that CMS unreasonably concluded that Cogent’s OCI mitigation strategy would avoid an impaired objectivity OCI.  Second, we sustain the protest on the basis that the agency failed to reasonably consider the impact of Cogent’s OCI mitigation strategy on its technical approach.  We have reviewed all of the protester’s other arguments and find no additional basis on which to sustain the protest.8 Impaired Objectivity OCI  As noted above, CMS identified a potential OCI because [REDACTED] supports the FFE under a separate contract, and the OA task order’s SOW requires the contractor to reconcile and validate FFE enrollment and payment data.  AR, Tab 8e, TEP Report at 83; SOW at 22; AR, Tab 21, OCI Memo at 6.  The agency explains this task as follows:

The OA contractor performs validation of enrollment and payment data using logic developed independently.  This independent validation provides CMS confidence that the enrollment data supporting the monthly payment processing are correct.  It is imperative that these determinations remain independent so that we prevent as best as possible any flaw in these calculations occurring in both sets of calculations.

AR, Tab 21, OCI Memo at 6.  When the agency reviewed Cogent’s quotation, the TEP identified a potential OCI because [REDACTED]–the holder of the FFE contract–was proposed as a subcontractor.  AR, Tab 8e, TEP Report at 83.  The concern being that as a subcontractor on the contract, [REDACTED] would be responsible for validating the enrollment and payment data it produced under its FFE contract.  In response, Cogent stated it would “firewall [REDACTED] personnel from participation in reviewing and/or validating payments data generated by [REDACTED] personnel on the FFE contract.  Only personnel from Cogent People or its other subcontractors will perform validation of [REDACTED]-generated payment data and reports on the OA contract.”  Id.

Cogent added that it would “provide strict oversight of the payments data validation process”–including “continuous monitoring of all data validation activities”–and it would relocate “resources assigned to payments data validating as necessary and appropriate.”  Id. at 84.  The TEP found that Cogent adequately addressed the OCI concern.  Id. After ASG challenged the agency’s review of the OCI, the contracting officer prepared a memorandum discussing the nature of the OCI and the agency’s review of Cogent’s proposed mitigation approach.9  AR, Tab 21, OCI Memo.  In the memorandum, the contracting officer wrote that she believed Cogent effectively mitigated the impaired objectivity OCI by firewalling [REDACTED] personnel from validating FFE payment data.  Id. at 6.  The contracting officer stated that she understood the firewall “as inclusive of all contributing data that is used to derive payment data including final monthly payment amounts . . . and any enrollment data arising from the FFE contract.”  Id. at 6-7.

The contracting officer noted that Cogent said it would provide “continuous monitoring of all data validation activities” to confirm no OCI exists.  Id. at 7.   The contracting officer also wrote that she rereviewed Cogent’s quotation and verified that Cogent’s proposed business analyst lead responsible for the validation of payment and External Data Gathering Environment (EDGE) data was a Cogent employee.  AR, Tab 21, OCI Memo at 7.  She stated:  “This is significant to ensure that the data…

DECISION A Square Group, LLC (ASG), a small business of Rockville, Maryland, protests the issuance of a task order to Cogent People Inc. (Cogent), a small business of Columbia, Maryland, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 230314, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for health insurance marketplace and financial management operational analytics.  The protester challenges the agency’s consideration of an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest (OCI), numerous aspects of the agency’s evaluation of Cogent’s quotation, the best-suited vendor determination, and the best-value tradeoff decision.   We sustain the protest.

Access the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story