Comptroller General

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

of the United States

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

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: ACS Federal Solutions, LLC 

File: B-404129 

Date: January 7, 2011 

Thomas C. Papson, Esq., Jason A. Carey, Esq., and Erin B. Sheppard, Esq., McKenna 

Long & Aldridge LLP, for the protester. 

Carl J. Peckinpaugh, Esq., and Jill R. N. Chung, Esq., for Computer Sciences 

Corporation, an intervenor. 

Dennis Adelson, Esq., Herman Narcho, Esq., and Virginia Ackerman, Esq., 

Department of Labor, for the agency. 

Scott H. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, 

participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions is denied, where 

record shows that protester was led during discussions into consideration of that 

aspect of its proposal that the agency ultimately found introduced a risk; agencies 

are only required to generally lead offerors into those aspects of their proposals 

requiring amplification or correction, and need not identify every possible 

consequence of an offeror’s business decision to offer a particular solution. 

DECISION 

ACS Federal Solutions, LLC, of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to 

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), of Falls Church, Virginia, under request for 

proposals (RFP) No. DOL089RP20548, issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) for 

medical bill processing services. ACS asserts that the agency failed to conduct 

adequate discussions. 

We deny the protest. 

The RFP contemplates the award, on a “best value” basis, of a fixed-price contract to 

perform medical billing services in connection with DOL’s Office of Workers’ 

Compensation programs. The RFP contemplated an implementation period of up to 

18 months (comprised of a base implementation period of 5 months, followed by an 

optional 7-month implementation period, and a second, 6-month, optional 

implementation period), followed by 4 option years and 2 award years of operational 
Page 2 B-404129 

performance. RFP, amend. 12. Firms were advised that the agency would evaluate 

proposals in three non-price areas (technical/management, prior experience and past 

performance), and that the non-price factors were, collectively, slightly more 

important that price. RFP, § M.2. 

The record shows that the agency assigned adjectival ratings of either exceptional, 

very good, satisfactory, marginal or unacceptable for the technical/management 

factor; adjectival ratings of either extremely similar, very similar, somewhat similar, 

slightly similar or neither similar nor relevant for the prior experience factor; and 

adjectival ratings of either exceptional, good, satisfactory, neutral, marginal or 

unacceptable for the past performance factor. Agency Report (AR) exh. A-9, 

at 43-44. 

In response to the solicitation, the agency received four proposals. The agency 

ultimately established a competitive range comprised of the protester and CSC, and 

engaged in several rounds of both written and oral discussions. AR, exh. A-12; files 

B and I; oral discussion videos 1 and 2. 

At the conclusion of those discussions, the agency assigned both the protester’s and 

the awardee’s proposals overall ratings of satisfactory under the 

technical/management factor; ratings of very similar to the protester’s proposal and 

somewhat similar to CSC’s proposal under the prior experience factor; and ratings of 

good to both proposals under the past performance factor. Source Selection 

Decision Document, at 7. However, while both proposals received overall ratings of 

satisfactory under the technical/management factor, the agency assigned satisfactory 

ratings to the protester’s proposal under each of the subfactors, whereas it assigned 

the CSC proposal ratings of very good under three of the subfactors and satisfactory 

under four of the subfactors of the technical/management factor. Source Selection 

Decision Document, at 7. In addition, while the awardee proposed a price of 

$142,504,296, the protester proposed a price of $160,729,150. Id. On the basis of 

these evaluation results, the agency made award to CSC, finding that its proposal 

represented the best value to the government. After being advised of the agency’s 

source selection decision and receiving a debriefing, ACS filed this protest with our 

Office. 

ACS protests the adequacy of the agency’s discussions in connection with a single 

aspect of its proposed solution to the requirement. ACS, the incumbent contractor, 

has been providing the agency’s requirements using a highly customized software 

product developed for DOL, and [deleted]. In its initial proposal, ACS offered to 

transition its software product from the [deleted] it currently uses to an [deleted] 

solution (referred to in the record as [deleted] or [deleted]), and to do so during 

performance under its predecessor contract, so that ACS could offer the [deleted] 
Page 3 B-404129 

solution to the agency for the solicited requirement.1 The protester maintains that 

the [deleted] solution would offer improved performance and, potentially, lower cost 

over the life of the solicited requirement. 

After evaluating ACS’s initial proposal and advising the firm that implementation of 

the [deleted] solution under its predecessor contract was not acceptable, the agency 

subsequently advised the protester during discussions that its proposal was based on 

an incorrect assumption, specifically, the assumption that the agency would allow 

ACS to migrate its existing system to an [deleted] solution during performance of the 

predecessor contract. The agency therefore advised ACS that “[b]ecause [ACS’s] 

assumption is incorrect, the Offeror may wish to reconsider the effect of this 

incorrect assumption and revise its proposal accordingly.” AR, exh. C-5, Initial 

Ratings, Factor 1, deficiency. 

In response to the agency’s initial discussion question, ACS eliminated the proposed 

migration from its current [deleted] system to its originally proposed [deleted] 

solution, stating as follows: 

ACS understands, respects, and will attend to the DOL’s remarks 

regarding the [deleted] Migration referenced in our original proposal. 

In response to DOL’s concerns, ACS has halted the [deleted] Migration 

and removed [deleted] from the revised proposal. Instead, ACS will 

deliver a . . . solution based upon the proven [deleted]. 

AR, exh. J-1-1, File 6, at 2. 

In the source selection decision, the agency identified a risk associated with the 

firm’s use of its existing [deleted] system. Specifically, the agency noted that, 

because ACS was proposing legacy technology (i.e., its [deleted] system), support for 

the system might end, and the expertise required for the [deleted] system and the 

[deleted] used by ACS in its [deleted] system solution could become scarce over 

time. Source Selection Decision Document, at 9. 

ACS asserts that the agency never identified this specific risk during discussions, 

despite the fact that the agency engaged in several additional rounds of discussions 

after ACS proposed eliminating the [deleted] solution and using its [deleted] solution 

instead. According to the protester, the agency’s failure in this regard amounted to 

inadequate discussions because this risk constituted a new deficiency in its proposal, 

and the agency was obliged to discuss it with ACS. 

 

1

 Separately, ACS also sent the agency a request to migrate its software product from 

the [deleted] to the [deleted] solution during performance of the predecessor 

contract. The agency denied ACS’s request. 
Page 4 B-404129 

We have no basis to object to the adequacy of discussions here. Discussions are 

adequate where offerors are advised of the weaknesses, excesses or deficiencies in 

their proposals. US Filter Operating Serv’s., Inc., B-293215, Feb. 10, 2004, 2004 CPD 

¶ 64 at 3. While discussions should be as specific as practicable, there is no 

requirement that they be all-encompassing or extremely specific in describing the 

agency’s concerns; rather, the legal requirement is that they generally lead the 

offerors into the areas of their proposals that require amplification or correction, 

without being misleading. Id. Moreover, where an agency has advised an offeror of 

its concern, there is no requirement that it raise the issue again in subsequent rounds 

of discussions, even where the issue continues to be a concern to the agency. Id.

Subsequent to the written discussions described above, the agency and ACS engaged 

in oral discussions, during which ACS again represented that it intended to use its 

[deleted] solution instead of the [deleted] solution originally proposed. Specifically, 

the protester’s representative stated: 

ACS has withdrawn and completely removed any references to our 

technology refresh initiative. We referred to this previously as 

[deleted] migration . . . . We intended to have this refresh completed in 

our current contract year. And quite frankly, cost . . . lower cost 

infrastructure was the driver behind that . . . . We decided not to put it 

in our current proposal because we believe that implementing both the 

enhancements [to the [deleted] system] to meet the additional 

requirements and the technology refresh quite honestly compounded 

the complexity and introduced risk. 

Video 1, at 13:00-13:49. ACS’s representative also specifically recognized during 

those oral discussions that its current [deleted] solution, while generally meeting the 

solicitation requirements, nevertheless was, in his words, “short of state-of-the-art.” 

Id. at 40:15. 

The protester’s representatives went on to suggest that, once its [deleted] solution 

was fully implemented and certified, ACS intended again to propose to the agency 

migration from the [deleted] solution to the [deleted] solution. Video 1, at 41:55-

42:22. In response to that suggestion, the agency’s technical evaluation panel 

chairman specifically cautioned the protester that it would not receive credit for any 

proposed migration from one [deleted] to another, unless such a migration was 

included in the firm’s proposal: 

[A]ny tech value enhancement . . . would probably, may, add value to 

the best value decision that we have to make. But, what you just stated 

about doing this sometime in the future, we can’t consider that unless 

it’s part of the proposal. 

Video 1, at 42:31-42:49. In response, the protester’s representative specifically 

acknowledged that he understood, but that the firm had made a decision--based on 
Page 5 B-404129 

its assessment of implementation risk--to forego offering the migration from one 

[deleted] to another as part of its proposal. Id. 

In summary, the record shows that ACS understood that its proposed [deleted] 

solution was “short of state-of-the-art,” but that it had made a business decision to 

forego implementation of the state of the art [deleted] solution because of risks 

inherent in implementing any migration. The record further shows that ACS 

understood that the agency would not give it credit in the evaluation and source 

selection decision based merely on a suggestion that the migration could take place 

sometime in the future. While the protester is correct that the agency did not 

expressly identify the specific risk it ultimately articulated in its source selection 

decision during discussions, we think it nonetheless adequately led the protester into 

that area of its proposal, and made clear to the protester that the consequences of 

not including the [deleted] solution in its proposal would affect the agency’s best 

value deliberations. In response, the protester clearly decided, on the basis of its 

business judgment, that not including the [deleted] solution in its proposal was its 

best--least risky--proposal strategy. We therefore conclude that the agency’s 

discussions with the protester in this area were adequate. Simply stated, an agency 

need not identify every conceivable consequence of an offeror’s business decision in 

order to discharge its duty to engage in meaningful discussions. 

The protest is denied. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsl