GHE HealthCare, Inc., B-284786, June 6, 2000

B-284786 Jun 06, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency improperly evaluated proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation factors. 2. Agency determination to award to offeror whose proposal reflected overall technical superiority at a slightly higher price than protester is unobjectionable where solicitation provided that technical considerations were more important than price. GHE argues principally that it should have received the award because of its lower price and that Sherman's proposal was improperly evaluated. Offerors were required either to have "a physically handicapped accessible outreach/counseling facility located in the counties of Texas for which services are being offered or be able to furnish required services through referral agreement. View Decision Matter of: GHE HealthCare, Inc. File: B-284786 Date: June 6, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION GHE HealthCare, Inc. (GHE) protests the award of a contract to Sherman Psychological Services (Sherman) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 549-7-2000, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Medical Center Dallas, Texas, as a small business set-aside for readjustment counseling services. GHE argues principally that it should have received the award because of its lower price and that Sherman's proposal was improperly evaluated. The protester also asserts that the agency failed to provide notice that one of the protester's current employees represented its competition. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued on August 26, 1999, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with two 1-year options to provide readjustment counseling services to eligible veteran beneficiaries in Lamar and Grayson counties, Texas. RFP Part II-2, at 6. Offerors were required either to have "a physically handicapped accessible outreach/counseling facility located in the counties of Texas for which services are being offered or be able to furnish required services through referral agreement, affiliation, or consultant arrangements through a licensed or qualified provider" in the relevant area. RFP Part II-4, at 8. Proposals were to be submitted in 14 separate parts, and the RFP provided guidelines as to what information was to be presented in each of these parts. Part 1 was to contain each offeror's completed standard form (SF) 1449 and required certifications; parts 2 through 9 were to address the offeror's method of satisfying the agency's minimum needs; and, parts 10 through 14 were to contain information concerning the offeror's method of addressing specified additional evaluation criteria. RFP Part IV-3, at 29. The RFP advised that proposals would be evaluated and point-scored on the minimum needs factors (parts 2 through 9) and on the additional criteria (factors 10 through 14). RFP Part V-1, at 33. The agency's minimum needs included, among other things, a specified core staff and facility description, under which the offeror was required to demonstrate that it had at least one psychiatrist or doctoral level psychologist or master of social work level psychiatric social worker on its staff. If the offeror could not provide one of the counselors listed above, it was required to have a mental health-related masters level counselor, and have a psychiatrist, doctoral clinical psychologist, psychiatric social worker or psychiatric clinical nurse specialist serving as a consultant on call during regular working hours to perform services and/or be immediately accessible for consultation. RFP Part IV-3, at 30. The solicitation provides that the government "will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered," RFP Part V-1, at 33, and advised offerors that the VA intended to award a contract without discussions. RFP Part IV-1(g), at 26. Offerors were required to provide a per-session rate for the clinician who would perform the services for individual therapy, group therapy and couple/family therapy sessions, RFP Part 1, at 2, and the solicitation provided that for award purposes, the agency would add the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. RFP Part V-1(b), at 33. Price was to be point-scored and was equal in weight to the minimum needs factors. RFP Part V-1(a), at 33. Three proposals were received, including those of GHE and Sherman, by the September 20, 1999 closing date. After reviewing the proposals, the contracting officer eliminated one proposal from further consideration for failure to satisfy a mandatory solicitation requirement. Agency Report at 2. Additionally, the contracting officer noted that the two remaining offerors had both proposed the same psychologist as principal counselor in their proposals.