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.