BNUMBER: B-274924.2
DATE: February 21, 1997
TITLE: Consultants on Family Addiction
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Consultants on Family Addiction
File: B-274924.2
Date:February 21, 1997
Hubert J. Bell, Jr., Esq., Smith, Currie, & Hancock, for the
protester.
Bruce A. Denning, Esq., and Michael J. Shea, Esq., Sutherland, Asbill
& Brennan, for Atlanta Psychological Associates, an intervenor.
Roberta M. Echard, Esq., Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, for the agency.
Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Agency's evaluation of awardee's technical proposal as superior to
protester's, based in part on staff capabilities, is reasonable and
fully supported by the record. In view of unobjectionable evaluation,
protester's bias allegations fail to establish that agency acted with
intent to injure the protester.
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 (50)Price (25)Experience (15)Location
(10) Total (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. Accordingly, he awarded the
contract to APA. After receiving notice of the award, COFA filed a
protest with our Office, and then supplemented it after reviewing the
agency report.[2]
In its supplemental protest, COFA identified a number of areas in
which it believes the agency improperly scored APA's proposal. In
COFA's view, but for the agency's evaluation bias in favor of APA and
against COFA, it would have received the highest proposal score.
In reviewing the evaluation, it is not the function of our Office to
evaluate the proposals de novo. Rather, we will examine an agency's
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes and regulations,
since the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter
of administrative discretion. Information Sys. & Networks Corp.,
69 Comp. Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD para. 203; Advanced Technology and
Research Corp., B-257451.2, Dec. 9, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 230. From our
review of the record, we find neither evidence of any specific intent
to injure the protester nor any other basis to object to the agency's
evaluation.
For example, under the first evaluation criterion, quality of
services, the agency evaluated proposals on the basis of six factors,
listed in descending order of importance: capacity to perform;
proposed approach; quality of staff; ability to provide the range of
services; treatment philosophy; and physical plant. Both proposals
were scored the same under four of the six factors. APA's proposal
was rated higher than COFA in the areas of capacity to perform and
quality of staff. COFA argues that APA was not entitled to a higher
score under either factor because APA did not have experience in
Fulton County or elsewhere performing these treatment contracts. COFA
raises the same objections with regard to the agency's evaluation of
APA under the experience and reputation criterion, noting that APA
received undue credit for the (limited) experience of COFA's former
counselor.
While APA had not performed these contracts before, the agency found
that the offeror had the capacity and experience to provide the
services, in part based on the experience of COFA's former counselor
who had performed the same services under COFA contracts. As a result
of her experience under the COFA contracts, the counselor was familiar
with assessments, individual and group counseling, supervision of
group co-leaders, preparing reports, case management, administering
urine tests, reporting results, maintaining client files, and
overseeing the general functioning of services in various county
offices. There is nothing improper in evaluating an offeror's
capacity to perform services based on the experience of those who will
perform those services. See S.C. Jones Servs., Inc., B-223155, Aug.
5, 1986, 86-2 CPD para. 158. Further, the counselor in question has 17
years of experience, primarily in the field of substance abuse
treatment including administrative experience gained from positions
she held before working for COFA. In addition, APA's principal has
been providing clinical services for 19 years, is on the staff of
several area hospitals, has performed contract services for juvenile
courts in four Georgia counties for some 13 years, and was a full
professor at the Georgia School of Professional Psychology. COFA
argues that the size of the contract awarded to APA is greater, and
thus more complex to perform, than that actually performed by its
former counselor under the COFA contracts. However, while contract
size may be relevant to contract complexity, the fact that the
contract to be awarded is larger in size does not necessarily mean
that the larger contract is more complex. See PMT Servs., Inc.,
B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. 98. Here there is ample evidence
in the record to support the agency's assessment that APA possesses
the capacity and a well qualified staff to perform the level of
complexity in the awarded contract.
COFA also challenges the agency's evaluation of its former counselor's
qualifications because it did not reflect the poor performance of that
counselor which ostensibly led to COFA's termination of the
counselor's contract. In this regard, COFA alleges that the
counselor's deficient performance included her refusal to lead group
counseling sessions for 6 weeks in July and August 1996, and her
refusal, after returning from a vacation, to adjust her lunch hour to
see a counseling client. As discussed above, the agency investigated
these matters prior to making the award and found them to be without
basis. In this regard, when COFA did not identify the client in
question, the agency contacted the only probation officers in the
Atlanta office who had clients in counseling with COFA. Neither of
these probation officers was aware of the counselor's refusal to
handle any counseling sessions and identified another COFA counselor
as being responsible for handling the group sessions.
In addition, the counselor has submitted affidavits here which explain
the allegations. The counselor states that at the end of June 1996,
COFA's principal determined that she would no longer be responsible
for conducting the group counseling sessions in Fulton County; a COFA
employee already working with the group would conduct them resulting
in a cost savings to COFA. The counselor also denies that she ever
refused to adjust her lunch hour to accommodate a client who required
immediate assistance. She explains that upon returning from a
vacation on September 3, COFA's principal requested that she see two
clients. She was unable to reach either by telephone at first. She
planned to meet with one of the clients the next night, until she
learned that the client had already arranged to meet a different
counselor. She continued in her attempts to reach the other client
until COFA terminated her contract on September 5.
While COFA argues that the client the counselor refused to see was
different from the ones accounted for by the counselor and the
agency's investigation, it has submitted nothing, apart from the
allegation itself, to substantiate this argument. Accordingly, on
this record, we have no basis to question the agency's conclusion
regarding the counselor's alleged poor performance.
COFA also contends that the agency's evaluation of APA's physical
plant and facility under the quality of services and geographical
location criteria was flawed. In this regard, COFA argues that its
facility is closer to the Fulton County probation office, is more
accessible to public transportation, and is in a safer area than APA's
facility. COFA's arguments are based on its understanding that APA's
sole facility is located some 13 miles away from the probation office.
However, in addition to that location, APA proposed a location
approximately the same distance away from the probation office as is
COFA's facility, and which has comparable transportation
accessibility. Thus, there is no basis to object to the agency's
evaluation of APA's proposal under these evaluation factors.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to COFA's contentions that
the agency's evaluation of its proposal was flawed. In this regard,
the agency scored COFA's proposal lower than APA's under the quality
of services and price criteria. Otherwise, the two proposals received
identical scores. While COFA neither objects to its score under the
price criterion nor claims that it should have received a perfect
technical score, it does complain that it should have received higher
scores under many of the evaluation factors. However, it has not
established that it was entitled to a higher score.
For example, COFA argues that it was improper to score its proposal
lower than APA's under the "capacity to perform" and "quality of
staff" factors based on its successful past experience in Fulton
County. As observed by the agency, COFA's experience in Fulton County
was attributable to the successful performance of COFA's former
counselor, who is now working for APA. Those proposed to work for
COFA under the new contract did not have as much experience in Fulton
County as the former counselor and COFA had experienced a number of
personnel turnovers in the months leading up to the award
determination. According to the agency, Fulton County
offender-clients tend to have a lower economic status, to have more
serious addiction problems, and to have more difficulty in performing
normal thought processes, than do offenders in other counties where
COFA had performed. Consequently, the agency scored COFA's proposal
slightly lower than APA's proposal based on the particular experience
possessed by COFA's former counselor. In sum, the record provides no
basis to object to the agency's evaluation of COFA's proposal.[3]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. We reach the same conclusion from our review of the record. While
COFA states that its principal also discussed the COFA proposal with
the counselor, the counselor denies the allegation. Apart from the
allegation, there is no evidence that the counselor ever discussed the
proposal with COFA or otherwise was aware of its contents. Further,
our review of the technical proposals provides no indication that APA
used information from COFA's proposal in preparing its own technical
or price proposal. In this regard, we note that the RFP disclosed the
incumbent's pricing for the same services and COFA proposed pricing
which was appreciably higher than the incumbent's pricing. While COFA
argues that APA received a significant advantage from knowing COFA's
proposed price, we believe that APA's decision to propose pricing
lower than the incumbent's simply reflects appropriate business
judgment and does not indicate that APA knew of, or obtained any
advantage from, COFA's pricing.
2. COFA's original protest alleged that the APA counselor, its former
employee and independent contractor, had allegedly made material
misrepresentations about proposed personnel and had used her access to
COFA's proposal in preparing APA's proposal. We dismissed this
protest because it lacked any factual basis and concerned a dispute
between third parties which our Office does not review.
3. Since we find no error in the evaluation of either APA's or COFA's
proposals, we have no basis to conclude that the agency acted with a
specific intent to injure COFA or that the evaluation unfairly
affected the protester's competitive position. Hill's Capitol Sec.,
Inc., B-250983, Mar. 2, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 190. Moreover, even if
COFA's proposal had received a perfect technical score (75 points),
COFA would not be in line for the award. Due to COFA's high proposed
price, it received one of the lowest price scores (16.2 points). Its
combined score of 91.2 points would still be lower than APA's
combined score of 91.5 points, and the agency explains that APA's
proposal would remain the most advantageous to the government.