BNUMBER:  B-270993.2
DATE:  November 1, 1996
TITLE:  Family Stress Clinics of America

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Family Stress Clinics of America

File:     B-270993.2

Date:November 1, 1996

Clifford K. Brickman for the protester.
Terrence J. Tychan, Department of Health and Human Services, for the 
agency.
Henry J. Gorczycki, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

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.

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.  241.  

We have reviewed Family Stress's proposal in its entirety.  The 
portion of its proposal which addresses the basic services to be 
provided under this contract almost without exception repeats verbatim 
the 35 pages of requirements stated in the SOW.  Such parroting of the 
SOW requirements does not provide sufficient information for the 
agency to evaluate the offeror's proposed approach and its 
understanding of the contract requirements.  See Bannum, Inc., 
B-271075 et al., May 22, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  248.

The remainder of Family Stress's proposal provides little more than a 
general discussion of the resources which Family Stress proposes to 
use to perform under the contract, without providing specific 
information about its proposed approach as requested by the RFP.  

For example, the RFP instructed offerors to discuss the 60-day 
phase-in period, including "anticipated major difficulties and problem 
areas and recommended approaches for their resolution."  Family 
Stress's proposal provided only a time line of significant events 
after contract award and a delivery schedule identifying deliverable 
items and the corresponding due dates stated in the SOW, and did not 
provide any discussion of anticipated difficulties as required by the 
RFP.  

Another example concerns recruitment of staff counselors to ensure 
coverage throughout the western states.  The RFP instructs offerors to 
identify all staff counselors which, at the time of proposal 
preparation, are committed to working on the contract and to provide 
specific plans for the recruitment of qualified staff.  Although 
Family Stress's proposal identified the subcontractor which would 
provide staff counselors, it did not identify the counselors who would 
work under the contract or propose a recruitment plan.  

The protester now states that it could provide such required 
information during discussions.  However, Family Stress had the burden 
of submitting such information as part of its initial proposal.  The 
little information beyond the restatement of the SOW which Family 
Stress did provide with its proposal did not present an independent 
technical approach and management plan for the basic services which 
the agency could reasonably evaluate.[1]  The extent of revision 
necessary to place the proposal in reasonable contention for award was 
thus substantial, and the proposal was properly excluded from the 
competitive range.[2]  See id. 

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Much of the information provided in the proposal which was more 
than mere repetition of the RFP language concerned optional items, 
such as the Employee Assistance Program Information System, and not 
the basic services to be performed under the contract.

2. The protester also contends that the agency is biased against 
Family Stress because of a previous protest of this RFP.  Family 
Stress's argument has no merit in this regard, inasmuch as the record 
here establishes that the agency properly eliminated the protester's 
proposal from consideration for failing to submit an adequately 
written proposal.