You state that it overpredicts the load and underpredicts the springback. I just want to clarify--by 'underpredict the springback', do you instead mean that it underpredicts the permanent set? What is your tested permanent deflection, and what is your predicted permanent deflection?
My reason for the request for clarification is the following--an overprediction of the load would be consistent with a particular error; that same error would also result in an underprediction of permanent set.
I will overclarify just to make sure that we are using the same terms--
Let's say my load point has initial position of x0=0. I deflect it to position x1=0.01. It then 'springs back' to position x2=0.002. In this case, my permanent deflection is 0.002 (x2-x0), and my springback is 0.008 (x1-x2).
Now-what may be happening--frequently when people describe elastic-plastic material models, they describe them directly from test data, rather than converting the test data into equivalent mechanics data (nominal stress-strain in the former, true stress-plastic strain in the latter). If your test data for this material was not converted into a correct format, this would typically result in an overly-stiff material definition. In your situation, this would manifest itself as a higher load than is correct, and a lower permanent than is correct. Frankly, I never trust material data unless I know personally the source of that data (and I trust their level of competence). My first check for an error source would be this.
Brad