The companies claim CMS’s decision stems from internal conflicts within the agency, where officials resistant to batCAVE’s implementation are leveraging leadership changes to push for a new developmental platform that their office would oversee. IntelliBridge further argued that there is no evidence in the administrative record to justify abandoning batCAVE for a new solution.
“There is no finding that it would somehow be ‘impracticable’ to use batCAVE,” the motion added.
CMS, represented by the U.S. Department of Justice, disputed IntelliBridge’s claims. The government argued that the agency had met all statutory requirements and was not obligated to prioritize batCAVE during market research.
“The court should not second guess the agency’s process for determining how best to meet its requirements,” the government said in its filing.
It further contended that IntelliBridge’s interpretation of Section 3307 imposes non-existent requirements and that batCAVE does not qualify as a commercial product under federal definitions.
