In March 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP), under a competitive sealed proposal process, seeking proposals for the supply of pharmaceuticals for its Developmentally Disabled Centers. The pricing structure set out in the RFP provided that the winning vendor would be reimbursed through Medicare, Medical Assistance (MA), or private insurance. Apparently, DPW would not consider price as a factor in its award of the contract.
DPW received four bids and awarded the contract to Diamond Drugs whose proposal was scored the highest. Omnicare filed a protest with DPW and argued that DPW violated the Procurement Code by failing to consider price as an element of the bids when it contracted to purchase pharmaceuticals for which there was no set pricing scheme and where DPW would pay for drugs not covered by Medicare, MA, or a private insurer. Section 513(g) of the Procurement Code requires that a purchasing agency consider price in the competitive sealed proposal process. DPW argued that that its actions were proper because it would pay the same regardless of which vendor won the contract. DPW rejected the protest. Omnicare then appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
On May 15, 2013, the Commonwealth Court sustained the protest and voided the contract. The Commonwealth Court first held that the protest was timely as it was filed within seven days after notice of the contract award was posted to the DPW website. The Commonwealth Court rejected DPW’s argument that the protest was untimely because the RFP provided Omnicare with enough information on which to base its bid protest. The Commonwealth Court next held that the contract violated the Procurement Code because DPW will pay directly for non-compensable medications even though it did not consider price as a factor in its award.
The Commonwealth Court wrote:
In doing so, and in failing to consider pricing for non-compensable drugs as an element of the proposals, DPW deprived itself and the offerors of the opportunity to discover whether an offeror could offer better prices for non-compensable drugs than those arrived at by using the MA pricing formula. Given that the offerors’ prices for non-compensable drugs could have differed, DPW violated Section 513(g) [of the Procurement Code] by failing to consider pricing as an element of the proposals.
The Commonwealth Court decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Department of Public Welfare can be found here.