BNUMBER:  B-278906 
DATE:  April 1, 1998
TITLE: M3 Corporation, B-278906, April 1, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:M3 Corporation

File:     B-278906

Date:April 1, 1998

Steven W. McKinzie for the protester.
Richard V. Gonzales, Esq., United States Coast Guard, for the agency.
Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  In a procurement for in-house training courses on simplified 
acquisition procedures, the agency properly downgraded the sample 
training materials submitted by the protester because the materials 
did not evidence that the protester understood simplified acquisition 
procedures or the requirements stated in the solicitation.

2.  Agency was not required to conduct discussions concerning the 
protester's negative past performance references under an acquisition 
conducted under simplified acquisition procedures.

DECISION

M3 Corporation protests the evaluation of its quotation and the award 
of a purchase order to Northwest Procurement Institute, Inc. (NPI) 
under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DTCCG8-98-Q-0328, issued by the 
Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for in-house 
training courses on simplified acquisition procedures, to be taught at 
Coast Guard facilities in Petaluma, California.

We deny the protest.

The Coast Guard conducted this procurement pursuant to the simplified 
acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 
13.  The RFQ, issued on December 1, 1997, solicited quotations for an 
instructor and instructional materials for a basic and an advanced 
course on simplified acquisition procedures.  RFQ Simplified 
Acquisition Procedures (basic course) Statement of Work (SOW), 
Advanced Simplified Acquisition Procedures (advanced course) SOW.  
Both courses were to include 40 hours of instruction over a 5-day 
period, the basic course to be taught from January 5 through January 
9, 1998, and the advanced course to be taught from January 12 through 
January 16.  Basic course SOW  sec.  1(a), (c), Advanced course SOW  sec.  
1(a), (c).  The RFQ identified with specificity the topics to be 
covered in each course, e.g., a discussion of FAR part 13 revisions 
and a discussion of the various simplified acquisition techniques, 
Basic course SOW  sec.  1(f), (k), and simplified acquisitions subject to 
the Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act, Advanced course SOW  sec.  
1(h), (i). 

The RFQ award criteria provided for award based on a cost/technical 
tradeoff, stated that technical factors were significantly more 
important than price, and listed four technical factors in descending 
order of importance:  past performance, qualifications of instructors, 
sample curricula, and sample text.  Under the sample curricula and 
sample text factors, quoters were to submit copies of training 
materials for evaluation purposes.  Specifically, the sample curricula 
factor provided for an evaluation of a "typical curriculum for both an 
advanced and basic simplified acquisition training course," and the 
sample text factor provided for an evaluation of a "sample text, 
covering use of credit cards, which reflects Coast Guard or other 
agency specific requirements."  The RFQ also stated that the 
government's knowledge of, and previous experience with, a quoter 
would be considered in the technical evaluation.

The Coast Guard received quotes from NPI, M3, and two other firms.  
M3's quote of $7,800 was low, and NPI's quote of $9,582 was next low.  

The agency found that M3's sample text and sample curricula did not 
evidence that the protester understood the RFQ requirements.  The 
agency remarked that M3's sample text was copied verbatim from the 
Coast Guard's Small Purchase Handbook, and that M3's sample curricula 
provided for instruction in areas irrelevant to the SOW or unrelated 
to simplified acquisition procedures, such as an introduction to 
publicizing requests for proposals.  The agency concluded that M3 
either "didn't read [the] Statement of Work, or simply used a 
[curriculum] from an existing course without any thought to tailoring 
it to [the Coast Guard's] specific requirements."

In addition, the agency was aware of past performance problems on the 
part of M3's president and proposed instructor, who taught the basic 
and advanced simplified acquisition course for the Coast Guard during 
his tenure with another firm.  The Coast Guard retained student 
evaluation sheets for a March 1996 course taught by M3's president, in 
which the students rated M3's president a "poor" or "unsatisfactory" 
instructor and described the course as "poor" and of "little" benefit 
to them.[1]  For example, one student commented that he "would not 
sign up for another course [with] this instructor," who was prone to a 
"misuse of terms" and was unable to "find references for statements . 
. . when [statement] was wrong or challenged by others."  Another 
student commented that "[s]ubject knowledge was weak" on the part of 
M3's president and that the course "was dramatically inferior to the 
basic course [the student] took from a different contractor."

In contrast, NPI recently taught the basic and advanced simplified 
acquisition course for the Coast Guard, and its quote included 
comprehensive textbooks for the solicited courses, which detailed the 
use of credit cards and numerous other topics identified in the SOW.  
NPI's sample materials earned "good" and "excellent" ratings, and its 
past performance and instructors' qualifications also earned "good" 
ratings.  

The agency concluded that NPI's quote was so technically superior to 
M3's as to be worth the added price.  On December 16, the Coast Guard 
issued a purchase order to NPI.  This protest followed.

M3 protests the evaluation of its quotation.  M3 argues that the 
sample curricula factor did not require M3 to tailor its curricula to 
the SOW requirements and that the sample text factor did not preclude 
M3 from using a chapter from the Coast Guard's Small Purchase Handbook 
as its submission.  The protester thus argues that the agency could 
not downgrade its sample materials for any informational weaknesses 
vis-a-vis the SOW requirements.

When using simplified acquisition procedures, an agency must conduct 
the procurement consistent with a concern for fair and equitable 
competition, and must evaluate quotations in accordance with the terms 
of the solicitation.  Nunez & Assocs., B-258666, Feb. 10, 1995, 95-1 
CPD  para.  62 at 2.  In reviewing protests against an allegedly improper 
evaluation, we will examine the record to determine whether the agency 
met this standard and reasonably exercised its discretion.  Id.; 
Northwest Management, Inc., B--277503, Oct. 20, 1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  108 
at 4. 

We find that the agency, reasonably and consistent with the RFQ, 
evaluated the many informational shortcomings in M3's sample 
information relative to the SOW.  In this regard, the RFQ required the 
firm selected to teach the training course to deliver all training 
materials and textbooks under the purchase order.  Basic course SOW  sec.  
1(b), Advanced course SOW  sec.  1(b).  Although the RFQ did not require 
quoters to submit the actual training materials and textbooks to be 
delivered under the contract, quoters were required to submit sample 
curricula and texts for evaluation purposes.  This request put quoters 
on notice that the copies of materials submitted with their quotes 
could be evaluated for the extent to which they represented the actual 
materials to be delivered and reflected the quoter's understanding of 
the SOW requirements, and the agency could reasonably downgrade a 
quote that did not so demonstrate its understanding.  See 
Environmental Training and Consulting Int'l, Inc., B-278185, Dec. 5, 
1997, 97-2 CPD  para.  158 at 2-3.

In addition, M3's quote suggested that its submitted sample 
information was indicative of the actual training materials the 
protester intended to deliver under the contract, in that M3's 
submissions were titled "U.S. Coast Guard Simplified Acquisition 
Procedures Course, Basic Curriculum" and "United States Coast Guard 
Simplified Acquisition Procedures Course, Advanced Curriculum."  These 
curricula, which purported to outline the content of M3's proposed 
courses, provided for instruction in several areas that were either 
unrelated to simplified acquisition procedures or inapplicable to the 
SOW requirements.  This reasonably caused the agency to doubt the 
accuracy and relevance of the content of M3's proposed courses.  
Similarly, M3's submission of a chapter from the Coast Guard's Small 
Purchase Handbook as its sample text reasonably inspired little 
confidence in the protester's independent knowledge of the underlying 
simplified acquisition technique and its ability to convey appropriate 
information through lecture and course materials.  

We therefore find reasonable the agency's conclusion that the 
protester's sample training materials were weak, especially in 
comparison to the awardee's sample training materials, which were 
comprehensive, accurate, relevant to the RFQ requirements, and 
representative of the actual training materials to be delivered under 
the contract.  See id. at 3; American Artisan Prods., Inc., B-278450, 
Jan. 30, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  37 at 4.

The protester also objects to the evaluation of the past performance 
of M3's president and proposed instructor.  The protester concedes 
that the Coast Guard courses taught by its president were criticized 
by former students, but claims that the agency should have disregarded 
the negative comments because they related to deficiencies in the 
textbook used by its president during his tenure with another firm.  
Specifically, the protester argues that the textbook used by its 
president in his previous classes "was not up to date and that 
students did comment negatively on the text not being current but that 
the course instruction was exceptionally good."

We find that the agency reasonably considered these negative student 
comments in evaluating the protester's past performance and the 
qualifications of its instructor.  The protester is incorrect that the 
student evaluations were limited to problems in the textbook.  Based 
upon our review of the documented student comments, it is apparent 
that students found M3's president an unsatisfactory instructor, who 
could not compensate for weaknesses in the text owing to what students 
found to be his limited knowledge of the subject.

M3 finally argues that the agency had a duty to conduct discussions 
with M3 regarding the negative past performance information.  In 
making this argument, the protester has confused the requirements 
applicable to negotiated procurements with those applicable to 
procurements using simplified acquisition procedures.  While an agency 
is required to discuss negative past performance information with 
offerors whose proposals are included in the competitive range in a 
negotiated procurement, FAR  sec.  15.610(c)(6) (June 1997), there is no 
requirement for establishing a competitive range or conducting 
discussions in procurements conducted under simplified acquisition 
procedures.  FAR  sec.  13.106-2(b)(1).

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The Coast Guard has not retained the student evaluations from other 
courses taught by M3's president.  However, the technical evaluator in 
this case, who administered other contracts where M3's president was 
an instructor, stated in a declaration that she remembered many 
negative students evaluations regarding other courses taught by M3's 
president, which were discussed with the contractor in an effort to 
improve performance.