CHP International, Inc.

B-266053.2 Apr 29, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that agency conducted inadequate cost realism analysis is denied where the agency considered the realism of the awardee's proposed direct labor costs. It is clear from the record that the protester was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to make certain adjustments to the labor escalation rate or fringe benefits that the protester believes should have been made. Protest that agency conducted unequal discussions with the protester and the awardee is denied where the record establishes that the agency properly tailored its discussions to the specific weaknesses in each offeror's proposal and gave both offerors an equal opportunity to address these weaknesses. The substitution of personnel after award is not improper where the offeror provided resumes and firm letters of commitment for its proposed individuals and nothing in the record suggests that the names were submitted other than in good faith. View Decision Matter of: CHP International, Inc. File: B-266053.2 Date: April 29, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest that agency conducted inadequate cost realism analysis is denied where the agency considered the realism of the awardee's proposed direct labor costs, the number of labor hours and the mix of labor categories, the fringe benefits, travel and miscellaneous costs, and the indirect rates, and it is clear from the record that the protester was not prejudiced by the agency's failure to make certain adjustments to the labor escalation rate or fringe benefits that the protester believes should have been made. Protest that agency conducted unequal discussions with the protester and the awardee is denied where the record establishes that the agency properly tailored its discussions to the specific weaknesses in each offeror's proposal and gave both offerors an equal opportunity to address these weaknesses. The substitution of personnel after award is not improper where the offeror provided resumes and firm letters of commitment for its proposed individuals and nothing in the record suggests that the names were submitted other than in good faith. Attorneys DECISION CHP International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to World Learning, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-3, issued by the Peace Corps for the pre-service training of Peace Corps volunteers in technical, language, cross-cultural and personal support skills necessary for their assignments in Guatemala and El Salvador. CHP, the incumbent contractor, challenges various aspects of the proposal evaluation and source selection process, particularly the cost realism evaluation of the awardee's proposed costs. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued March 10, 1995, contemplated the award of a cost-plus- fixed-fee contract to provide pre-service and in-service training to Peace Corps volunteers serving in Guatemala and El Salvador for a 1-month pre- training period and a base year with 4 option years. Offerors were required to submit separate technical and cost proposals. In the technical proposal, each offeror was to describe its technical approach for providing the required services. Additionally, the RFP required each offeror to "identify the training staff by name, position, and vita" and to provide letters of intent. The RFP identified required key personnel, including, for example, a training director, master trainers, and language coordinators, but did not specify the exact number of language and technical trainers required. Proposed staff were required to meet the minimum requirements set forth in the statement of work. The RFP provided that cost proposals would be evaluated to determine if the costs proposed were realistic and appropriate for the required effort. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal presented the best combination of features and provided the best value to the government, with technical competence considered more important than cost, and past performance considered the least important evaluation criterion. The Peace Corps received three proposals, including those of CHP and World Learning, by the May 2 closing date. A four-member technical evaluation panel evaluated the proposals based on four technical competency ratings (exceptional, good, marginal, and poor). After review of initial proposals and costs, all three proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussions were held with the three offerors, all of which submitted best and final offers. The final evaluation results were as follows: Technical Cost Past Performance Rank World Learning Good $3,391,492 Excellent 1 Firm X Good+ $4,279,412 Excellent 2 CHP Good $4,206,090 Excellent 3 All offerors provided a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data attesting to the accuracy, currency and completeness of their cost or pricing data.