Complaint Against Request for Proposals Terms

A firm complained against the terms of a request for proposals (RFP) issued by the State of New York for the services of a fiscal agent to operate New York's Medicaid Management Information System. The project is funded substantially by a grant administrated by the Health Care Financing Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The complainant contended that: (1) the RFP unreasonably restricted the performance site to Albany; (2) the RFP improperly disclosed the details of the complainant's operating cost data, damaging its competitive position; (3) the RFP did not adequately disclose the basis for selecting the successful offeror; (4) the incorrect projections of the RFP on the amount of work involved encouraged offerors to submit unrealistically low prices; and (5) award to any firm other than the low bidder would violate State law. GAO reviewed the record and held that: (1) the grantee's determination that the required services be performed in a particular location was reasonable, because the determination was based on the grantee's need to enhance control, cost savings, and operational efficiency; (2) there was no basis to conclude that the grantee violated certain grant conditions because the protester's contentions were either without merit, premature, or late; (3) there was no violation of grant conditions where the grantee released certain data pertaining to the incumbent contractor's operating expenses because the complainant has not shown that it was materially prejudiced by the grantee's action; (4) there was no basis to conclude that grant conditions were violated where the complainant had not made a persuasive showing that the projected workload data in the RFP were not based on the best available information and therefore did not accurately reflect the grantee's reasonably anticipated needs; and (5) the plan to select the successful offeror based on factors other than low price, did not violate Federal law, and the complainant has not shown that the RFP violated State law. Accordingly, the complaint was denied in part and dismissed in part.