TITLE:  Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd., B-294035, July 30, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294035
DATE:  July 30, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   A 

   A 

   Matter of:   Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd.

   A 

   File:            B-294035

   A 

   Date:              July 30, 2004

   A 

   Kathryn Huddleston for the protester.

   Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, 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

   A 

   Protest that evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is
denied where the record shows that the agency*s evaluation and source
selection decision were reasonable and consistent with evaluation factors.

   DECISION

   A 

   Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd. (KHA) protests the award of
contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ-04-R-0019, issued
by the Department of State, for the design and delivery of 2-day effective
public speaking/executive media courses. KHA primarily objects to the
agency*s evaluation of its proposal and the agency*s source selection
decision.

   A 

   We deny the protest.

   A 

   The RFP, issued on March 17, 2004, contemplated the award of fixed-price
contracts for a base year and four 1-year option periods.  The contractors
will develop and deliver 2-day workshops on communicating effectively
before a live audience, as well as on television and radio for the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) of the Department of State.  RFP S C.1.  The
courses will be offered to Department of State personnel, including
ambassador-designates.  Id.  Offerors were required, among other things,
to prepare and coach participants for one videotaped oral presentation and
for one videotaped mock television interview, and to provide feedback,
critique, and discussions during playback.  RFP S C.3.2.  Offerors were to
be experienced media and communications consultants and trainers. 

   A 

   The RFP provided for award of contracts to firms whose proposals the
agency determined represented the best values to the government.  The RFP
contained three technical evaluation factors--(1) the offeror*s past
performance experience in delivering this type of training; (2) the
offeror*s qualifications as established by the resumes of the course
facilitator/moderator and proposed key instructors/speakers; and (3) the
quality, coherence, and appropriateness of the proposed approach or
methodology (including course design) to perform the required work.  The
RFP provided that an offeror must submit course material with its
technical proposal for each course type.  RFP S M.[1]

   A 

   The agency received 23 proposals by the closing date.  A technical
evaluation panel (TEP) rated eight proposals as excellent, three proposals
as good, eight proposals as fair, two proposals as poor, and two proposals
as unsatisfactory.  KHA*s proposal was rated fair.  Agency Report (AR),
Tab 4, Technical Evaluation of Proposals.  The agency subsequently awarded
contracts to the eight offerors whose proposals received an excellent
rating.  KHA was notified of the awards in a letter dated AprilA 28.  KHA
filed this protest with our Office on May 4.

   A 

   KHA principally objects to the agency*s evaluation of its proposal and the
agency*s decision not to award the firm a contract.  KHA maintains that it
proposed an experienced and highly qualified instructional team.  Protest
at 2.

   A 

   The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of
the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its
needs and the best method of accommodating them.  Marine Animal Prods.
Int*l, Inc., B-247150.2,
July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD P 16 at 5.  In reviewing an agency*s evaluation,
we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will examine the
agency*s evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent
with the solicitation*s stated evaluation criteria.  MAR, Inc., B-246889,
Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD P 367 at 4. 
An offeror*s mere disagreement with the agency*s evaluation does not
render the evaluation unreasonable.  McDonnell Douglas Corp., B-259694.2,
B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD P 51 at 18.

   A 

   The record supports the TEP*s rating of KHA*s proposal as fair.  For
example, the TEP found that the protester*s approach to media training was
weak and that the protester*s sample course materials failed to provide
for a video practice session as required by the solicitation.  The TEP
also found that KHA proposed staff whose primary expertise was in business
organization and business communication and that these personnel were not
experienced in public speaking and media relations as required by the
solicitation.  Further, the TEP found that the protester*s only proposed
individual with media expertise was an assistant instructor who previously
worked as a television staff reporter, but whose experience was largely in
the entertainment industry.  The TEP also noted that KHA proposed to
employ as a consultant a former ambassador who has no identified expertise
in public speaking or media relations.  AR, Tab 4, Technical Evaluation of
Proposals.  While KHA disagrees with the agency*s evaluation of its
proposal, KHA has not demonstrated that the evaluation was unreasonable.

   A 

   In comparison to KHA*s proposal, the agency found, among other things,
that the eight awardees whose proposals were rated excellent proposed
staff with the required expertise in public speaking and media training. 
Further, KHA*s proposed price was significantly higher than any of the
prices of the eight awardees whose proposals were rated excellent.  In our
view, the agency*s decision to award to firms whose proposals were higher
technically rated and lower priced than KHA*s proposal was reasonable and
in accordance with the solicitation.

   A 

   KHA also argues that this *procurement was characterized by numerous flaws
which had a significant impact on any new bidder to this procurement.* 
Protest at 5.  For example, KHA argues that the solicitation contained
numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities and failed to properly define
evaluation criteria.  KHA also argues that the agency acquisition team
contradicted the statement of work in its answers to offerors.  Id.  These
arguments, which essentially concern alleged solicitation improprieties
raised after award, are untimely.  Bid Protest Regulations, 4A C.F.R.
SA 21.2(a)(1) (2004).

   A 

   Further, the protester contends that this procurement was conducted in a
manner unfair to firms with no previous experience with FSI.  Protester*s
Comments at 1.  However, the agency reports that three of the eight
awardees had no prior experience with FSI.  We find nothing in the record
to support KHA*s allegation that firms such as KHA, which had no prior
experience with FSI, were treated unfairly.

   A 

   The protest is denied. [2]

   A 

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

   A 

   ------------------------

   [1] Since the solicitation did not indicate the relative weights of
technical and price factors, it must be presumed that they were of equal
weight.  Intermagnetics Gen. Corp., B-286596, Jan. 19, 2001, 2001 CPD P 10
at 8 n.7.

   [2] KHA raises several other issues concerning the conduct of the
procurement.  Based on our review of the record, we find that these
additional protest grounds are without merit and do not warrant detailed
analysis or discussion.