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.