BNUMBER: B-281541
DATE: January 26, 1999
TITLE: Worldwide Language Resources, Inc., B-281541, January 26,
1999
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Worldwide Language Resources, Inc.
File: B-281541
Date:January 26, 1999
Lawrence P. Costa, Esq., for the protester.
Maj. David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, for the agency.
Linda S. Lebowitz, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
In a solicitation for foreign language education training services for
special forces and military intelligence personnel, requirement that
contractor be accredited is unobjectionable where the requirement is
reasonably related to facilitating the agency's achievement of its
language training and readiness objectives and where the requirement
is in accord with the agency's regulation.
DECISION
Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. protests the inclusion of an
academic accreditation clause in request for proposals (RFP) No.
DAKF06-98-R-0020, issued by the Department of the Army for foreign
language education services at Fort Carson, Colorado and other
out-of-state and foreign locations. The protester contends that
inclusion of this clause is unduly restrictive and overstates the
agency's needs.
We deny the protest.
The RFP requires the contractor to provide foreign language training
to, among others, special forces and military intelligence personnel.
The RFP further requires the contractor to provide administrative
support, materials preparation/adaptation (computer assisted
instruction, translation services, and pre-service training for
foreign language instructors), and instructional services as outlined
in the RFP's performance work statement. RFP sec. C.1.1.2.1. The RFP
included the following accreditation clause:
The Contractor must be accredited by either a regional or
national accrediting association recognized by the American
Council on Education. The accreditation is neither divisible or
transferable.
RFP sec. C.1.5.
The agency explains in its administrative report that the inclusion of
the accreditation clause in the RFP was based on the United States
Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) Regulation No. 350-22, USASOC
Command Language Program, paragraph 4-2(d) (Apr. 9, 1993), which
provides as follows:
The contractor shall be accredited. Accreditation is neither
divisible nor transferable. A non-accredited institution or
organization does not gain accredited status solely because of an
affiliation or arrangement with an accredited institution.[1]
The protester basically argues that the accreditation clause is unduly
restrictive and overstates the agency's needs because language
instructional services are currently being provided to the government
by firms which are not accredited. The protester contends that simply
following a regulation does not reasonably explain the agency's need
for the accreditation requirement as contained in the RFP.
Procuring agencies, not our Office, are in the best position to
determine their needs and how best to accommodate them, and we
therefore will not object to agency determinations in these respects
unless they are shown to be unreasonable. Lionhart Group, Ltd.,
B-257715, Oct. 31, 1994, 94-2 CPD para. 170 at 3. An accreditation
requirement is not unduly restrictive where it bears a reasonable
relationship to the services to be performed. Id.; School for Educ.
Enrichment, B-199003, Oct. 16, 1980, 80-2 CPD para. 286 at 4. An agency
may reasonably determine that accreditation, including the review
process accreditation requires, contributes to an effective program of
instruction by promoting and maintaining program quality. School for
Educ. Enrichment, supra, at 4-5.
Here, paragraph 1-6 of USASOC Regulation 350-22 explains that the
USASOC Command Language Program is:
designed to initiate, maintain and/or increase the language
proficiency of those personnel who are required to perform the
world-wide multi-discipline missions of USASOC. It is imperative
that USASOC soldiers be prepared to function during peacetime and
wartime missions. Thus, identification of the assets which are
most critical to the accomplishment of the USASOC mission in
peace and war is the first step in establishing an effective
Command Language Program. Soldiers must be able to function
independently, competently, and professionally.
Paragraph 1-7 of USASOC Regulation 350-22 continues by listing the
following five training principles:
a. Foreign language training to satisfy readiness requirements
is the responsibility of commanders.
b. Regular testing and monitoring of proficiency is essential to
an effective language training program.
c. Individual soldier participation in foreign language training
on a regular basis is crucial to the achievement of readiness
objectives.
d. Access to a qualified instructor must be part of every
language program.
e. Language training requirements:
(1) Follow proven language training methodology.
(2) Know what to train.
(3) Conduct training.
(4) Obtain instructor feedback on student performance.
(5) Evaluate training results.
The agency's inclusion of the accreditation clause in the RFP was
required by the referenced USASOC regulation and was in accord with
Army policy. Moreover, as reflected by the regulation itself, the
requirement for an accredited language training contractor is
reasonably related to facilitating the agency's achievement of its
language training and readiness objectives by promoting and
maintaining a quality language training program. For these reasons,
we do not view the RFP's accreditation requirement as unduly
restrictive or as overstating the agency's needs.[2]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The agency also followed the guidance provided in two draft
directives. See United States Special Operations Command Directive
Nos. 350-10 and 350-22.
2. To the extent the protester argues that other agencies do not
require contractors to be accredited for purposes of providing
language training, we note that each procurement stands on its own and
the fact that the judgments of other agencies as to the necessity for
accreditation may have been different does not establish the
unreasonableness of the accreditation requirement for this
procurement. Lionhart Group, Ltd., supra, at 4. Under the prior
contract, the incumbent contractor was given a one-time, 2-year waiver
to perform without meeting the accreditation requirement, apparently
to resolve pending litigation.