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).