Family Stress Clinics of America

B-270993.2 Nov 01, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Award was to be made on a best value basis with the technical factor having "paramount" importance as compared to the past performance and cost factors. The most important of which was "technical approach and management plan.". Initial proposals were submitted by June 14. 975 The agency determined that the proposals of offerors A through D were acceptable and in the competitive range. The agency determined that the remaining proposals were technically unacceptable and not capable of being made acceptable without substantial proposal revisions. Thus were rejected from further consideration. The agency notified Family Stress that its proposal was eliminated from further consideration. The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether a proposal is within the competitive range is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency. View Decision Matter of: Family Stress Clinics of America File: B-270993.2 Date: November 1, 1996 Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposal from the competitive range where the proposal essentially restated the statement of work requirements and did not demonstrate whether the protester independently understood those requirements. Attorneys DECISION Family Stress Clinics of America protests the rejection of its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. 240-BPHC-8(6), issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), for counseling services for the Employee Assistance Program for the western region of the United States Postal Service. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract for 1 year with 4 option years. The statement of work (SOW) provided a detailed description of the basic contract requirements. Additionally, the SOW described optional items, including intermediate-term and short-term counseling model options, add-on service options, and an Employee Assistance Program Information System option. Award was to be made on a best value basis with the technical factor having "paramount" importance as compared to the past performance and cost factors. Under the technical factor, the RFP stated three subfactors, the most important of which was "technical approach and management plan." The RFP stated specific elements for consideration under this subfactor, including "[t]he offeror's technical approach and understanding of the contract's requirements," and "the extent to which the management plan reflects a correct understanding of the [SOW]." Initial proposals were submitted by June 14, 1996. Eight offerors, including Family Stress, submitted proposals on or before that date. The agency evaluated the proposals as follows: Offeror Score Estimated Cost A 88 $ 58,732,457 B 87.6 58,464,785 C 77 55,861,297 D 76.6 61,317,489 E 58 104,916,923 Family Stress 35.6 49,826,641 G 26 43,422,555 H 19.3 39,007,975 The agency determined that the proposals of offerors A through D were acceptable and in the competitive range. The agency determined that the remaining proposals were technically unacceptable and not capable of being made acceptable without substantial proposal revisions, and thus were rejected from further consideration. In the case of Family Stress's proposal, the agency specifically found that the proposal largely repeated the SOW requirements verbatim and thus failed to demonstrate an "understanding of required operations or a plan for accomplishing them." By letter of July 18, the agency notified Family Stress that its proposal was eliminated from further consideration. This protest followed. Family Stress contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and unreasonably eliminated it from the competitive range. Family Stress essentially alleges that its proposal fully addresses all of the contract requirements, and that the agency should conduct discussions with Family Stress and allow it to explain the details of its proposed approach. The evaluation of proposals and the resulting determination of whether a proposal is within the competitive range is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Shelby's Gourmet Foods, B-270585, Mar. 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 166. Our Office will only question the agency's evaluation where it lacks a reasonable basis or conflicts with the stated evaluation criteria for award. General Servs. Eng'g, Inc., B-245458, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD Para. 44. The offeror has the burden of submitting an adequately written proposal, and an offeror's mere disagreement with the agency's judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably. Premier Cleaning Sys., Inc., B-255815, Apr. 6, 1994, 94-1 CPD Para.