TITLE:  Daly Associates, B-287908, August 2, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-287908
DATE:  August 2, 2001
**********************************************************************
Daly Associates, B-287908, August 2, 2001

Decision

Matter of: Daly Associates

File: B-287908

Date: August 2, 2001

Lawrence T. Daly for the protester.

Anne Marie Donovan for Donovan Training and Development, an intervenor.

Maj. Robert W. Clark, Department of the Army, for the agency.

Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest of agency's evaluation of quotations is denied where record shows
that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with applicable evaluation
factors.

DECISION

Daly Associates protests the issuance of a purchase order to Donovan
Training and Development (DTD) under request for quotations (RFQ) No.
DABT43-01-T-0026, issued by the Department of the Army, United States Army
War College and Carlisle Barracks, for facilitating, leadership and group
skills training (FLAGS). Daly principally contends that the agency's
evaluation was unreasonable and that Daly should have been selected for
award.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation, issued February 28, 2001, as a total small business
set-aside, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price order for commercial
services. The RFQ stated that the primary goal of the acquisition is to
enhance military spouses' facilitating, leadership and group skills to
prepare them to constructively influence and to positively interact with the
military communities within which they live.

RFQ para. 1.2. The second goal is to develop Army War College students' spouses
as instructors/trainees to teach the contractor's FLAGS program to small
groups of other spouses at the Army War College each academic year. RFQ para.
1.3. The RFQ provided for issuance of the order to the vendor whose
quotation would be most advantageous to the government considering the
evaluation factors of technical and price. The RFQ provided that technical
was significantly more important than price. The technical factors, listed
in descending order of importance, were experience of personnel,
understanding of the agency's needs, management plan, and past performance.
The RFQ further provided that, in selecting the best overall quotation, the
government would consider the value of each quotation in terms of the
quality offered for the cost.

Four quotations were received, including those from Daly and DTD, the
incumbent. The quotations were evaluated by the source selection evaluation
board (SSEB) and all four quotations were determined to be technically
acceptable. The protester submitted the low price of $72,240. DTD submitted
the second lowest price of $92,250. The board determined that the quotation
submitted by DTD represented the best value to the government and
recommended award to DTD. Agency Report, Tab I. The board concluded that
DTD's experience and background were a "perfect match" for the FLAGS program
and that DTD's proven record in the field "ideally" qualified it for
selection. Id. While DTD did not submit the lowest price, the board
determined that DTD's price was within an acceptable range and reflected the
value of the experience the firm brought to performance of the work. Id. The
contracting officer reviewed the board's findings and disagreed with the
board's decision. The contracting officer believed that the protester's
lower price more than compensated for the advantages offered by the
incumbent. The contracting officer advised the source selection authority
(SSA) of his opinion concerning the award selection. Agency Report, Tab A.
The SSA decided to return the evaluation to the board with instructions to
establish a checklist of important technical sub-factors for each board
member to individually rate each proposal, then use the checklist to arrive
at a consensus on a recommendation and to rewrite the SSEB report. Id.

The board reevaluated the Daly and DTD quotations with the intent of
providing the contracting officer and SSA more specific data as to the basis
for the selection decision. In its reevaluation, the board used a decision
matrix that reflected the technical factors, contractor qualifications, and
statement of work. Agency Report, Tab H. After the reevaluation, the board
again selected DTD's quotation as providing the best value to the
government. Agency Report, Tab G. The board noted that DTD scored
consistently higher than the protester in the technical factors of
experience, understanding of the agency needs, management plan, and past
performance. Id.

The record shows that the evaluators found that DTD represented the best
value
for several reasons. First, DTD's principal possessed a master's degree in
education with a focus on "psychoeducational process," a degree the
evaluators concluded was directly related to the statement of work (SOW);
the protester had a master's degree in English. Second, the evaluators found
that the instructor certifications of DTD's principal were more numerous and
more relevant than the protester's certifications. Third, DTD's experience
as the incumbent demonstrated an understanding of the specific needs of the
Army War College. Fourth, DTD's work experiences with military groups,
especially military spouse and family groups, were current, while the
protester's last military experiences appeared to date back to 1987. Fifth,
the evaluators also noted that the FLAGS program is a program focused on the
issues related to military spouses and the spouses of military leaders and
that DTD's principal had been the spouse of a military leader and had
extensive experience in training military spouses. In contrast, the
protester's experience, although "impressive," did not focus on the military
spouse's perspective. Lastly, the evaluators found DTD's publications to be
directly related to family and military spouse issues, while the protester's
publications related to organizational management, history, and English.

Both the contracting officer and the SSA concurred with the board's
recommendation and, on May 11, the purchase order was issued to DTD. On May
21, the protester was provided a telephone debriefing. On May 24, the
protester filed a protest with our Office alleging that the agency
improperly evaluated its quotation and that the agency had a bias against
the protester in favor of DTD, the incumbent. Specifically, the protester
challenges the agency's evaluation and maintains that its quotation
demonstrated that it had the required skills and was superior to the
awardee's quotation because of its demonstrated 20 plus years of experience
in the field, its 25 years of army service, and its detailed description of
how it would perform the work required by the RFQ. The protester maintains
that while DTD's quotation stressed the level of effort necessary to deliver
the required classes, briefing interviews, and workshops, the quotation
nonetheless did not address certain requirements of the RFQ. [1]

In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of quotations, we
examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was reasonable
and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable statutes
and regulations. Support Servs., Inc., B-282407, B-282407.2, July 8, 1999,
99-2 CPD para. 30 at 3. We conclude that the agency's evaluation and selection
decision here were reasonable.

As noted above, the agency identified a number of reasons why DTD's
quotation represented the best value to the government. For example, the SSA
concluded that the educational background of DTD's principal was superior to
the protester's because DTD's principal had a more relevant master's degree.
We have no basis to question the SSA's conclusion that DTD's principal's
degree in education was more relevant than Daly's master's degree in
English. The record further shows that DTD's experience and publications
were more current and directly related to family and military spouse issues.
The record also shows that DTD had current working experience with military
spouse and family groups, while the protester's last military experience
dated back to 1987. DTD's listed publications included articles specifically
related to military family issues, such as the paper entitled The Military
Family: A Partnership Approach to National Security. The protester, however,
listed articles that dealt primarily with history and organizational
management in general with no specific emphasis on military family issues.
In sum, based on the record, we see no basis to question the agency's
conclusion that DTD submitted the superior quotation and thus represented
the best value to the government notwithstanding its higher price.

To the extent the protester contends that it should receive the order
because of its lower price, where, as here, the solicitation indicates that
technical considerations are more important than price considerations,
selection of a technically superior, higher-priced quotation is proper where
the record shows that the price premium was justified in light of the
quotation's technical superiority. Dynamics Research Corp., B-240809, Dec.
10, 1990, 90-2 CPD para. 471 at 2. Here, the record supports the agency's
decision to issue a purchase order to DTD based on the technical superiority
of its quotation.

Daly alleges that the agency was biased in favor of DTD. Specifically, the
protester states that during the debriefing, agency personnel stated that
DTD's principal "looked like she had a better ability to relate to the
student as a spouse." The protester interpreted this statement to mean that
the agency was looking for a woman. Government officials are presumed to act
in good faith; we will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to
procurement officials on the basis of inference or supposition. Triton
Marine Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 171 at 6. The
agency states, and the record reflects, that its evaluation was not based on
the fact that DTD's principal was a woman, but that the experience of DTD's
principal as the spouse of a former battalion commander would be helpful in
relating to the audience. The agency's consideration of the experience and
capability of DTD personnel was reasonable and consistent with the
evaluation criteria.

Lastly, the protester also asserts that issuance of the purchase order to
DTD was tainted because the leader of the evaluation board was listed as the
current contract point of contact by DTD and therefore had undue influence
on the board's decision. When a protester alleges bias or conflict of
interest on the part of a evaluation official, we focus on whether the
official exerted improper influence in the procurement on behalf of the
awardee or against the protester. George A. Fuller Co., B-247171.2, May 11,
1992, 92-1 CPD para. 433 at 4. Here, we find no evidence of an improper conflict
of interest or of improper influence. We see no impropriety in the chair of
the evaluation board being listed as the point of contact for one of DTD's
contracts.

The protest is denied.

Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel

Notes

1. In its comments, filed with our Office on July 10, the protester's raises
several instances where the DTD quotation allegedly failed to meet a number
of the RFQ requirements. For example, the protester argues that the DTD
quotation failed to provide a resume and failed to provide the required past
performance information, such as two points of contact telephone numbers,
type of contract, amount of contract, and period of performance. Also the
protester alleges other representations by DTD in its quotation may be
inaccurate. The record shows that the protester had a complete copy of DTD's
quotation when it filed its initial protest with our Office on May 25. We
therefore find these issues to be untimely and not for consideration on the
merits as they were required to be raised within 10 days after the basis of
protest was known or should have been known. Bid Protest Regulations,
4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (2001).