HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptaeby0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
Comptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision
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].
3301029](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptaeby0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)