BNUMBER:  B-271713
DATE:  July 19, 1996
TITLE:  Carol Solomon & Associates

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

Matter of:Carol Solomon & Associates

File:     B-271713

Date:July 19, 1996

Carol W. Solomon for the protester.
Robert A. Lincoln, Esq., Library of Congress, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Agency properly evaluated the protester's high-priced quotation and 
the awardee's low-priced quotation as essentially technically equal in 
a procurement for a training course on writing, where the teaching 
experience of the awardee's proposed instructor was roughly comparable 
to that of the protester's proposed instructors.

DECISION

Carol Solomon & Associates (CS&A) protests the award of a contract to 
WordMasters Writing Consultants, under request for quotations (RFQ) 
No. 96-P-28, issued by the Library of Congress for a training course 
on writing.

We deny the protest.

The Library issued the RFQ to three firms, including WordMasters and 
CS&A.[1]  The RFQ requested fixed-price quotes to teach a "Writing 
Essentials" course to approximately 80 students.  The students were 
administrative, clerical, and support staff of the Library, who had 
completed an introductory "Essentials of English" course taught by the 
protester.  The "Writing Essentials" course was for an additional 24 
hours of instruction, broken down into several sessions.  Classes were 
to include 20 students each and were to be held during the period from 
April 1 through June 15, 1996.

The RFQ established four evaluation factors:  (1) level of experience 
in conducting similar types of grammar and writing courses; (2) 
ability to meet time requirements; (3) commitment to give priority to 
this work; and (4) fair and reasonable price.  The RFQ did not assign 
relative weights to the factors.[2]

The Library received three quotes by the March 15 receipt date.  
WordMasters submitted the lowest-priced quote of $10,888; another firm 
submitted the next low-priced quote of $11,600; and CS&A submitted the 
highest-priced quote of $14,250.  The contracting officer selected 
WordMasters' quote for award because she considered the three quotes 
to be technically equal and WordMasters' low price to be therefore 
determinative.

CS&A protests that the agency misevaluated its quotation under the 
first evaluation factor, level of experience in conducting similar 
types of grammar and writing courses.[3]  Under a proper evaluation, 
contends CS&A, its quotation would have been deemed sufficiently 
superior to WordMasters to offset the awardee's price advantage.  As 
evidence of its experience, the protester notes that it taught the 
introductory writing course under the predecessor contract and 
"produced outstanding results by any instructional standards."

The determination of the relative merits of proposals, particularly 
with regard to technical considerations, is primarily the 
responsibility of the contracting agency, not our Office, since the 
agency must bear the burden of any difficulties resulting from a 
defective evaluation.  Delta Computec, Inc., B-225442, Feb. 9, 1987, 
87-1 CPD  para.  139.  In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we 
will not reevaluate the proposals, but will instead examine the 
agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent 
with the evaluation criteria stated in the solicitation.  AVR Filing & 
Storage Systems, Inc., B-250924, Feb. 25, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  179. 

Based upon our review of the record, we find that the contracting 
officer reasonably found WordMasters' and CS&A's quotations 
essentially equal under the contested evaluation factor.  The 
contracting officer considered each offeror's relevant teaching 
experience at universities, secondary schools, and government 
agencies, as well as their experience in designing and developing 
course materials.  The awardee's quotation showed that its proposed 
instructor had "important" teaching and publications experience.  For 
example, the instructor currently holds a faculty position with the 
University of Maryland's Professional Writing Program and has 
previously directed writing programs or taught writing courses at 
several other universities and government agencies; she also wrote the 
textbook proposed as the basis for the "Writing Essentials" course.  
In comparison, CS&A proposed two instructors, who predominantly design 
and teach writing courses on a contractual basis for governmental and 
corporate clients; one of the proposed instructors taught the 
"Essentials of English" course under the predecessor contract for 
these services.  Although the awardee lacked CS&A's experience under 
the predecessor contract, the awardee's quotation did demonstrate its 
instructor's pertinent and substantial teaching experience.  In our 
view, the contracting officer could reasonably consider this 
experience as roughly comparable to that possessed by the protester's 
instructors.  Because the quotations demonstrated comparable 
experience and were not distinguishable under the remaining technical 
factors (ability to meet time requirements and commitment to give 
priority to this work), the contracting officer reasonably selected 
WordMasters' lowest-priced quote for award.

CS&A nevertheless argues that the contracting officer should have done 
more to assure that the selection of WordMasters' quotation 
represented the best value.  For example, CS&A contends that the 
contracting officer should not have confined her review to offerors' 
proposals, but should have interviewed the instructors, reviewed 
course materials, and checked references.  The protester also argues 
that the contracting officer should have documented her consideration 
of the competing quotations' technical merit.

While there is no contemporaneous documentation regarding the 
Library's evaluation of quotations, our review must consider the 
entire record, including statements and arguments made in response to 
the protest.  See ROH, Inc., B-261132, Aug. 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  169.  
The fact that the agency's explanation was not contained in the 
contemporaneous record does not provide a basis to disregard it in our 
review.  See Sociometrics, Inc., B-261367.2, B-261367.3, Nov. 1, 1995, 
95-2 CPD  para.  201.  As discussed above, the record in this case 
reasonably supports the contracting officer's conclusion that 
WordMasters' and CS&A's quotations were basically equal from a 
technical standpoint.  In addition, the contracting officer performed 
an evaluation consistent with the stated evaluation criteria, 
considering the information submitted with each quotation.  There was 
no requirement that the contracting officer perform the more 
exhaustive evaluation suggested by CS&A.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Although the Library, as a legislative branch agency, is not 
subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), see 41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253(a)(1)(A) (1994), the Library reports that it conducted the 
acquisition guided by the simplified acquisition procedures of part 13 
of the FAR.

2. Where, as here, a solicitation does not indicate the relative 
importance of the evaluation factors, it must be presumed that each 
will be given approximately equal weight in making an award.  Ira T. 
Finley Investments, B-222432, July 25, 1986, 86-2 CPD  para.  112; Riggins 
Co., Inc., B-214460, July 31, 1984, 84-2 CPD  para.  137.

3. CS&A does not specifically contest the relative evaluation under 
the other two technical factors.