Consultants on Family Addiction

B-274924.2 Feb 21, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Is reasonable and fully supported by the record. The AOUSC is authorized to contract with appropriate agencies or persons for services including drug testing and care for offenders who are alcohol or drug-dependent. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based upon consideration of the stated evaluation criteria. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of four criteria. All criteria but price were numerically scored based upon the evaluation of the proposals. The price score was calculated by ranking the proposals from lowest to highest price with the lowest-price proposal receiving 25 points and the remaining proposals receiving a proportionately lower number of points. View Decision Matter of: Consultants on Family Addiction File: B-274924.2 Date: February 21, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Consultants on Family Addiction (COFA) protests the award of a contract to Atlanta Psychological Associates (APA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 113E-97-01, issued by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for treatment services for federal defendants and offenders. We deny the protest. The AOUSC is authorized to contract with appropriate agencies or persons for services including drug testing and care for offenders who are alcohol or drug-dependent, or suffering from psychiatric disorders. The services to be obtained under this solicitation include drug testing and out-patient treatment counseling services in Fulton County, Georgia. The RFP contemplated award of a fixed-price service contract for a base year with two 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government based upon consideration of the stated evaluation criteria. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of four criteria, listed in descending order of importance: Quality of Services (50 percent); Price (25 percent); Experience and Reputation (15 percent); and Geographic Location (10 percent). All criteria but price were numerically scored based upon the evaluation of the proposals. The price score was calculated by ranking the proposals from lowest to highest price with the lowest-price proposal receiving 25 points and the remaining proposals receiving a proportionately lower number of points. Fifteen offerors, including COFA and APA, submitted proposals by the closing date in July 1996. The agency evaluated the proposals, conducted discussions with all offerors, and provided them the opportunity to correct identified deficiencies in best and final offers (BAFO). COFA was an incumbent subcontractor for these services in Fulton County and an incumbent contractor under three other contracts in counties surrounding Atlanta, Georgia. Prior to the submission of proposals, COFA had advised one of its counselors that she would no longer be employed by COFA at the end of the current contract period, September 30. At that time, COFA and the counselor agreed that, as of June 1, she would work for COFA as an independent contractor. Subsequently, that counselor agreed to work with APA in submitting a proposal for this and other AOUSC procurements. Shortly after the submission of BAFOs, COFA's principal learned that this counselor had submitted a competing proposal and terminated her contract on September 5. COFA's principal advised the agency that the termination was for performance deficiencies and alleged that the counselor had access to COFA's proposal and pricing. The agency investigated the allegations against the counselor and determined that they had no effect on the procurement. In this regard, they found that there was no evidence that the counselor had actually looked at COFA's proposal or pricing and that she would have no need to look at them since, based on her experience as a COFA counselor, she knew how the treatment program worked, the Probation Office's philosophy, and what the contract requirements meant in terms of actual work load. [1] Based on the agency's experience with the counselor's good performance record and the absence of corroborating evidence, the agency also concluded that the allegations of poor performance were baseless. After receipt of BAFOs the agency evaluated the proposals, resulting in the following final scores: Offeror Quality Price Experience Location Total (50) (25) (15) (10) (100) COFA 40 16.2 14 8.5 78.7 APA 44 25 14 8.5 91.5 In making his award determination, the source selection authority noted that APA offered a qualified staff and quality services to the clients at the lowest price of all offerors. He found that APA had proposed a location central to Fulton County which was close to public transportation. He also noted that APA's proposal had the highest overall score using the criteria established for quality of service, experience, and geographic location.