BNUMBER: B-277018
DATE: August 19, 1997
TITLE: Richard M. Milburn High School, B-277018, August 19, 1997
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Richard M. Milburn High School
File: B-277018
Date:August 19, 1997
Robert H. Crosby for the protester.
Nicholas P. Retson, Esq., and Thomas J. Duffy, Esq., Department of the
Army, for the agency.
Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protester's contention that agency misevaluated its proposal is
denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and
in accordance with the stated evaluation factors.
2. Contention that agency improperly made award on the basis of
initial proposals is denied where the record shows that the
solicitation clearly indicated the agency's intent to make award
without discussions if possible, and the selection official reasonably
determined on the basis of the evaluation results that the technically
superior, lower-priced offer represented the best value under the
solicitation's evaluation scheme.
DECISION
Richard M. Milburn High School protests the award of a contract to
Central Texas College (CTC) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
DAKF11-96-R-0034, issued by the Department of the Army for foreign
language training services. Milburn challenges the agency's
evaluation of its proposal and argues that the agency improperly
failed to conduct discussions.[1]
We deny the protest.
The RFP sought offers to provide foreign language training services to
Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) active duty and reserve personnel in
three regional areas--I Corps, III Corps, and XVIII Airborne Corps.[2]
A detailed performance work statement (PWS) described the many
languages and levels of proficiency to be taught at various
installations and sites throughout the country. Offerors were
required to provide resumes and letters of commitment for its key
personnel, such as regional directors, that would be assigned to this
contract. Offerors were to submit separate past performance,
technical, and price proposals for evaluation. The RFP included
detailed instructions in section L for the preparation of proposals.
In section M, the following evaluation factors and subfactors (with
their relative weights) were identified:
Factor 1 Past performance (total weight - 40 percent)
Subfactor a Quality of service (30 percent)
Subfactor b Timeliness of performance (30 percent)
Subfactor c Cost control (20 percent)
Subfactor d Business relations (10 percent)
Subfactor e Customer satisfaction (10 percent)
Factor 2 Technical (total weight - 35 percent)
Subfactor a Pre-service instruction training plan (55 percent)
Subfactor b Staffing/recruiting/hiring plan (35 percent)
Subfactor c Quality control plan (10 percent)
Factor 3 Price (total weight - 25 percent)
The RFP advised that a firm, fixed-price requirements contract was
contemplated but provided for a possibility of multiple awards by
region. The contract was for a base period with up to four 1-year
options. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal
representing the best overall value to the government, past
performance, technical, and price factors considered. The RFP further
advised that the agency might make an award based on initial proposals
without conducting discussions, and that, therefore, each initial
proposal should contain the offeror's most favorable terms from a
price and technical standpoint.
Six firms, including Milburn and CTC, submitted proposals by the
closing date for receipt of proposals. A four-member evaluation panel
independently evaluated each past performance and technical proposal,
using forms on which narrative comments and numerical scores were
recorded. After the individual evaluations were completed, the
evaluators discussed the evaluations, calculated the average point
values assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, calculated
the average point scores overall, ranked the proposals according to
their relative standing, and assigned adjectival ratings to each
proposal. Price proposals were evaluated and were determined to be
realistic and reasonable.
The evaluation results for the two highest-rated proposals were:
CTC Milburn
Past Performance (40 percent) 92.9--Outstanding 89.3--Excellent
Technical (35 percent) 90--Excellent75--Satisfactory
Total Price for all regions (25 percent) $10,434,410.66
$10,538,836
In making the award determination, the source selection official (SSO)
considered the relative strengths of CTC's proposal--which was ranked
highest under the RFP's past performance and technical factors and
offered the second low total price for all regions; the CTC proposal
received a higher numerical rating than the Milburn proposal under
each past performance subfactor, except timeliness of performance
where both were equal, and under every technical subfactor and offered
a lower total price for all regions than that offered by Milburn. The
SSO concluded that a consolidated regional award would enhance the
overall quality of performance by providing a larger pool of language
instructors, provide continuity of services to FORSCOM's overall
language training mission, and result in a net reduction in language
training and administrative costs. Based on the evaluated superiority
of the CTC proposal and its lower price, the SSO determined that the
proposal represented the best value to the government and made award
to CTC without conducting discussions. After receiving notice of the
award, Milburn requested and received a written debriefing. This
protest followed.
Milburn argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was
flawed, particularly under the business relations subfactor of the
past performance factor and the staffing/recruiting/hiring plan
subfactor of the technical factor. Specifically, the protester argues
that its proposal unreasonably received low ratings under these
subfactors, which did not accurately reflect the merits of its
proposal. Milburn also argues that the agency should have held
discussions with the firm because many of the evaluators' concerns
could have been easily addressed during discussions.
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency's evaluation of
proposals, including the evaluation of past performance, we will
examine the record to ensure that the agency's evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation factors. Eagle
Design & Management, Inc., B-275062, Jan. 21, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 79 at
4. We have reviewed the proposals, individual evaluator narrative and
score sheets, the consensus evaluation narrative and scores, the award
recommendation memorandum, and the source selection decision, and, as
discussed below, we find no basis to question the reasonableness of
the agency's evaluation of Milburn's proposal.
Milburn first alleges that the agency unreasonably downgraded its
proposal under the business relations subfactor of the past
performance factor on the basis of a single negative response received
from a Milburn past performance reference. The evaluation record
shows that, while Milburn's past performance references generally gave
positive recommendations for Milburn, one of those references noted
that Milburn's local program manager was not "service oriented," and
another reference, in giving Milburn less than the highest rating,
noted that the Milburn team's response to "inquiries,
technical/service/administrative issues is somewhat effective and
responsive." Our review of the record confirms the reasonableness of
the rating of acceptable assigned to the proposal under the business
relations subfactor--the agency had a legitimate concern about the mix
of negative and positive past performance reference responses
received, and Milburn has not provided evidence to support its protest
contention that its proposal should have received a higher rating of
excellent under this subfactor. Moreover, the record shows that the
Milburn proposal received an overall past performance rating of
excellent which would not be affected in any material way, even if the
protest of the rating under this less important subfactor (worth only
10 percent of the past performance factor) had any merit.
Milburn next protests the agency's evaluation of its proposal under
the staffing/recruiting/hiring plan subfactor of the technical factor
regarding the experience of the personnel it proposed as regional
directors.[3] The RFP required the provision of three qualified
regional directors to serve as the contractor's coordinators for the
language program. Section C.5.3.1 of the PWS required, among other
things, that each regional director demonstrate proficiency in second
language acquisition methodology and teacher training, and have
knowledge of computer-based instruction, curriculum development, and
instructional applications. This section of the PWS, which identified
the minimum educational and experience qualifications that these
individuals had to meet, required the following of each regional
director: a bachelor's degree and 5 years of documented relevant
experience, or a master's degree and 3 years of documented relevant
experience; the capability to administer a comprehensive foreign
language program (including recruitment of instructors and monitoring
instructor training); the capability to implement an effective quality
control plan; responsibility for the day-to-day supervision and
evaluation of instructors; and performance of research and
implementation of the most current teaching methods. All offerors
were advised in section M of the RFP that proposals would be evaluated
for evidence of the offeror's capability to meet or exceed these PWS
requirements.
The evaluators determined that the resumes submitted by Milburn
demonstrated that, although Milburn's proposed regional directors
possessed the requisite academic qualifications, not one of the three
individuals met the minimum experience requirements set forth in the
PWS to show the capability to perform the requirements of the regional
director position. For example, although one proposed regional
director's resume showed a master's degree in management, the
evaluators found only 2 years, at most, of directly relevant work
experience; the evaluators also noted a lack of experience in the
critical roles of curriculum development, computer-based instruction,
and supervision of instructors. Our review of the proposal resume for
this individual supports the agency's evaluation--the individual has
many years of experience as a Russian language instructor, some
consulting experience, and a limited amount of general management
experience, yet the resume does not show at least 3 years of directly
relevant experience, as required, to persuasively demonstrate the
capability to perform this role as described in the PWS. Further,
although the resumes of the second and third proposed regional
directors show appropriate academic qualifications and several years
of experience as language instructors, neither individual's resume
shows specific experience in the relevant areas of foreign language
program management, supervision, teacher training and curriculum, and
computer-based instruction. The record thus supports the evaluators'
determination that the protester's proposed regional directors lacked
necessary experience to perform the contract services; consequently,
we have no reason to question the reasonableness of the agency's
substantial downgrading (to a rating of unacceptable) of the proposal
under the relevant staffing/recruiting/hiring plan subfactor or the
agency's general concern with the offeror's understanding of the
solicitation requirements in this area. While Milburn disagrees with
the evaluation, that disagreement does not show that the evaluation
was unreasonable. Eagle Design & Management, Inc., supra, at 4.
Finally, as to Milburn's contention that the agency improperly awarded
a contract to CTC without conducting discussions, the solicitation
clearly advised offerors of the agency's intent to make award without
discussions. Our Office will review an agency's decision to make
award without discussions to ensure that it was reasonably based on
the particular circumstances of the procurement, including
consideration of the proposals received and the basis for the
selection decision. Harry A. Stroh Assocs., Inc., B-274335, Dec. 4,
1996, 97-1 CPD para. 18 at 5-6; International Data Prods., Corp. et al.,
B-274654 et al., Dec. 26, 1996, 97-1 CPD para. 34 at 10-11. The record
shows that CTC's proposal received higher numeric technical evaluation
scores than the Milburn proposal under every evaluation factor and all
subfactors but one, and the CTC proposal offered a lower total price.
Given the deficiencies in the Milburn proposal, the overall technical
superiority of the awardee's proposal, and the reasonableness of the
awardee's proposed price, the record supports the reasonableness of
the agency's determination that CTC's proposal represented the best
value to the government without the need for discussions.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. Milburn also argued in its protest that the agency failed to
request revised price proposals and showed evaluator bias in favor of
the awardee. In its comments on the agency report, Milburn withdrew
these allegations.
2. The protester was the incumbent contractor for these services at
XVIII Corps; the awardee was the incumbent at I Corps and III Corps.
3. Milburn also contends that its proposal was misevaluated under this
subfactor because it proposed to comply with a solicitation
requirement for instructors to be certified through the use of the
Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT). The Army explains that,
during its debriefing, the protester was erroneously advised that the
RFP did not include, and that Army regulations do not permit, the
proposed certification. Our review of the record confirms the
agency's position that the primary reason Milburn's proposal was
substantially downgraded under this subfactor, as discussed above, was
the evaluators' determination that Milburn's proposed regional
directors did not have required relevant experience. The record shows
that Milburn's proposed use of the DLPT for instructor certification
had only a minor, if any, effect on the proposal's subfactor rating
and provides no reason to question the low rating assigned. Although
the protester contends that the procurement was flawed due to the
RFP's inadvertent inclusion of the DLPT requirement, we see no reason
to disturb the award determination on this basis--all offerors
competed on an equal basis here and the protester has not shown how
deletion of the requirement prior to the receipt of proposals would
have materially affected its proposal preparation or competitive
standing. Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester
demonstrates a reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the
agency's actions, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but
for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of
receiving the award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1
CPD para. 54 at 3; see Statistica, Inc., v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577,
1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996).