Wellpoint Military Care Corp. v. United States
953 F.3d 1373
Fed. Cir.2020Background
- The VA issued a Request for Proposal for Region 3 of its Community Care Network seeking a single-award, firm-fixed-price IDIQ contract; award would be a negotiated best-value decision based on Technical (with three subfactors), Past Performance, Socioeconomic Concerns, and Price, with non-price factors significantly more important than price.
- Solicitation required offerors to disclose corporate background and any joint-venture/affiliate/parent resources that would bear on performance.
- Optum Public Sector Solutions (OPSS) won the Region 3 award; WellPoint was an unsuccessful bidder and protested the award in the Court of Federal Claims.
- WellPoint’s protest argued (1) a mathematical/price-evaluation error (that the VA understated WellPoint’s relative cost savings) and (2) unequal treatment under the Corporate Experience/Capability subfactor (asserting the agency credited OPSS’s corporate family but not WellPoint’s parent/affiliates).
- The agency used a three-tier evaluation (SSEB → SSAC → SSA); the SSA made an independent integrated assessment and awarded to OPSS. The Claims Court upheld the award; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price-evaluation methodology | VA miscomputed comparative savings; should use relative difference and disclose dollar savings | VA used an equivalent, reasonable absolute-difference methodology (5.430%); no solicitation or law requires reciting dollar amounts for an IDIQ | Affirmed — VA’s price methodology was reasonable and consistent with the Solicitation; no legal requirement to state dollar amounts |
| Unequal treatment under Corporate Experience/Capability | TET improperly evaluated WellPoint “standing alone” while crediting OPSS’s parent/corporate family, so treatment was disparate | Any TET errors were not carried to the SSA; SSA independently considered parent/affiliate experience for both offerors and made a reasoned tradeoff; no prejudice | Affirmed — no prejudicial unequal treatment; SSA’s independent integrated decision was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Comint Sys. Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (de novo APA review of agency procurement actions)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (award may be set aside if decision lacked a rational basis or procedure was violated)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (protestor must show significant, prejudicial error)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (prejudice standard requires showing a substantial chance of a different outcome)
- Bannum Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (review factual findings for clear error)
- Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396 (2009) (harmless-error principle applies in APA review; prejudice inquiry context)
- CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (protestor must show but-for chance of winning to demonstrate prejudice)