In this рost-award bid protest, on May 4, 2004, plaintiff (“PGBA”) filed an Expedited Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Final Judgment (“Pl.’s Mot.”). The motion was directed to the Court’s decision reported as PGBA, LLC v. United States,
A Reconsideration of Denial of Injunctive Relief
TRICARE is a military health-care benefits program, focusing on dependents of active duty service members, retired service members, and dependents of retired service members. The contract at issue, known as the TRICARE Dual Eligible Fiscal Intermediary Contract or “TDEFIC,” pertains to the provision of claims-processing and associated customer-support services for approximаtely 1.7 million beneficiaries under the TRICARE government health care system who are simultaneously eligible for coverage under Medicare. See PGBA,
Plaintiff has argued that the Court’s decision not to enjoin performance of the TDEFIC contract “reflects a clear misunderstanding about the TDEFIC schedule that affectеd much of the Court’s analysis regarding the balance of harms.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3. Seeking to dispel any sense of immediacy or exigent circumstances associated with the procurement at issue, PGBA asserts that the governmеnt may extend the existing contracts under which benefits are administered and has, in fact, already extended the transition date for at least one region. Id. at 2, 5. As PGBA would have it, the government may thus avoid “any harm to TMA from а delay occasioned by a reevaluation [of the proposals].” Id. at 2.
PGBA’s argument is not persuasive. The factual situation in this ease simply does not
As far as actual service to beneficiaries is concerned, Mr. Rubin explained that changing the transition date or installing a new contractor would likely result in minimal disruption of service for beneficiaries and health care providers. Tr. at 50, 55-56. Most claims are processed еlectronically, and a shift by electronic means to a new contractor could be readily put in place. Tr. at 49-50. However, for the minority of claims that are processed on a paper bаsis, Mr. Rubin stated that there is a high likelihood that problems would result. Tr. at 49-50, 55-56. Mr. Rubin also testified that one region is already covered by the TDEFIC contract, with the transition having occurred “on schedule” on April 1, 2004. Tr. at 18, 22-23. He explained that only a small percentage of dual-eligible beneficiaries (approximately two percent) are located within this region and that, accordingly, most beneficiaries remain subject to the original Managed Care Services contracts, which the government presumably has the option to extend. Tr. at 20, 26. Any such extension, however, would bring its own additional costs and administrative burdens, including reprinting of notices to beneficiaries and assigning TMA staff to consult with members of Congress and each branch of the military about the delay. Tr. at 28-29, 30,46-49.
Additionally, Mr. Rubin testified that the beneficiaries within the region that has already transferred were prеviously covered by a subcontract held by WPS, indicating that the transition of this region required, in effect, a minimal disruption to TMA’s customers. Tr. at 18-19. Such minimal disruption, however, does not accurately reflect the start-up effоrts already conducted by WPS and TMA, including the development and testing of a new computer system for the processing of claims and payment requests. Tr. at 19, 38-45. The government specifically chose this smallest region for the first transition effort to test its systems and reduce problems with the remaining transitions. Tr. at 21, 45. For its part, PGBA has provided an affidavit from its president averring that PGBA has also “successfully completed” development of аn interface with TMA’s new computer systems. Horton Affidavit at 114 (May 11, 2004). However, Mr. Rubin testified that, even in light of PGBA’s current experience processing claims and the fact that PGBA has already developed the relevant computer interface elements, an award of the TDEFIC contract to PGBA would engender a delay in transition of between four and eight weeks as well as an additional burden on TMA to “benchmark” and test the system for PGBA. Tr. аt 42-45.
A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) may only be granted if the movant demonstrates “either that: (a) an intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (b) evidence not previously available has become available, or (c) that the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States,
B. Final Judgment
In its motion, PGBA requests that, in the event the Cоurt denies its request for reconsideration, “the Court enter final judgment in this matter so that an immediate appeal can be pursued.” Pl.’s Mot. at 3. The Court’s Order and Opinion, as originally issued under seal on March 31, 2004, and as reissued on April 22, 2004, in conjunction with denial of PGBA’s first motion for reconsideration, was an order denying PGBA’s request for injunctive relief. See PGBA,
C. Conclusion
Plaintiffs Expedited Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Final Judgment, is denied in part and granted in part. PGBA’s request for reconsideration is denied. PGBA’s request for a final judgment is granted. The Clerk shall enter final judgment pursuant to RCFC 54(b) denying PGBA’s claim for injunctive relief.
It is so ORDERED.
Notes
. The Court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to establish a comprehensive factual record regarding the effеcts of granting or denying injunctive relief at this stage of contract implementation. The underlying administrative record was, necessarily, silent as to these factual issues related to relief. See generally Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C.Cir. 1989). It is the responsibility of this Court, nоt the administrative agency, to provide for factual proceedings directed toward, and to find facts relevant to, irreparability of harms or prejudice to' any party or to the public interest through grаnt or denial of injunctive relief. See PGBA,
. The Court's prior reported decision incorporated a denial of PGBA’s initial motion for reconsideration filed after an opinion and order was rendered under seal. See PGBA,
. The TRICARE system has been "operated through a series of seven Managed Care Support ('MCS') contracts that cover eleven regions within the United States and around the world.” Id. at 198. Services to dual-eligible beneficiaries were administered through sub-contracts to these MCS contracts. The new system would geographically consolidate coverage to three regions, each with its own contract, and provide separate contracts for TDEFIC and pharmacy services. Id. at 199.