LifeCare, Inc., B-291672; B-291672.2, February 20, 2003

LifeCare, Inc., B-291672; B-291672.2, February 20, 2003 TITLE: LifeCare, Inc., B-291672; B-291672.2, February 20, 2003 BNUMBER: B-291672; B-291672.2 DATE: February 20, 2003 ********************************************************************** LifeCare, Inc., B-291672; B-291672.2, February 20, 2003 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: LifeCare, Inc. File: B-291672; B-291672.2 Date: February 20, 2003 E. Sanderson Hoe, Esq., and Alison L. Doyle, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. Edward N. Ramras, Esq., U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably rejected protester's proposal as technically unacceptable where solicitation required that proposals *shall contain detailed information that addresses and responds to the evaluations factors,* the solicitation listed the adequacy of offerors' proposed management plans and marketing plans as evaluation factors, and protester's proposal contained neither a management plan nor a marketing plan. DECISION LifeCare, Inc. protests the U.S. Marine Corps's award of a federal supply schedule (FSS) task order to Ceridian Corporation pursuant to a request for proposals (RFP) to provide various employee assistance services for Marine Corps members and their families. LifeCare protests that the agency improperly evaluated LifeCare's proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In August 2002, the U.S. Marine Corps identified a need to provide on-call employee assistance program (EAP) services for service members and their families. On September 10, 2002, the U.S. Marine Corps issued a solicitation to three FSS vendors, including LifeCare and Ceridian, seeking proposals to provide on-demand EAP services, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, via toll-free telephone lines and the Internet. Agency Report, Tab 4.[1] The performance work statement (PWS), which was included as part of the solicitation, specified various required EAP services, including the provision of: parenting and child care information,[2] education services,[3] financial information and counseling,[4] legal information and referrals,[5] elder care information,[6] *warm hand off* to TRICARE,[7] library services,[8] and *everyday* information.[9] Agency Report, Tab 4, at 15-17. The solicitation contemplated award of a task order for a 1-year base period with four 1-year option periods, and required each FSS vendor to submit separate technical and price proposals. The solicitation further provided that proposals would be evaluated on the basis of technical capability, past performance, and price, stating that technical and past performance factors combined were more important than price, and advising offerors that award would be based on the proposal considered *most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.* Agency Report, Tab 4, at 4. Regarding preparation of technical proposals, the solicitation directed: The technical proposal shall contain detailed information that addresses and responds to the evaluation factors for Technical Capabilities and Past Performance. Agency Report, Tab 4, at 2. The solicitation listed nine technical evaluation factors, including the following two: d. Adequacy of management plan and organizational structure to accomplish the services involved in the PWS . . . .[ [10]] . . . . . h. Proven ability to market this program to the military and spouse population, including reservists[,] as demonstrated by a marketing plan as a part of the submission. Agency Report, Tab 4, at 4.[11] Both LifeCare and Ceridian submitted proposals by the September 19, 2002 closing date.[12] The agency first evaluated the technical proposals to determine technical acceptability--that is, basic compliance with the requirements identified under each evaluation factor.[13] The agency found Ceridian's proposal to be acceptable with regard to all evaluation factors. In contrast, the agency found LifeCare's technical proposal to be unacceptable under four of the nine evaluation factors, including the two factors quoted above that required submission of management and marketing plans.[14] Agency Report, Tab 5, at 1-2. The agency did not conduct discussions with either offeror, concluding on the basis of its initial evaluation that Ceridian's proposal was most advantageous to the government. A task order was subsequently awarded to Ceridian. This protest followed.