The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the BNUMBER: B-270774; B-270774.2; B-270774.4; B-270774.5 DATE: April 22, 1996 TITLE: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, Inc. File: B-270774; B-270774.2; B-270774.4; B-270774.5 Date:April 22, 1996 Harry Sethna and Glen Harvey for the protester. Marcia G. Madsen, Esq., Jessica C. Abrahams, Esq., and Stacey L. Bierstock, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for Brown University, an intervenor. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that awardee's proposal does not comply with applicable statute relating to the composition and authority of proposed governing board is denied where the proposal shows that the awardee proposed a governing board that complies with all statutory requirements. 2. Protest that awardee engaged in "bait and switch" tactic is denied where record shows that key employee in question had submitted a letter of intent which the awardee included in its proposal; awardee's post-award substitution of the key employee because of the individual's unavailability is not objectionable where record shows that individual was proposed in good faith, but became unavailable for employment after contract award. 3. Protest challenging the evaluation of the awardee's proposal on various grounds is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation scheme outlined in the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. 4. Agency's cost/technical tradeoff is unobjectionable where record, when read as a whole, shows that selection was based on fact that awardee's proposal was found technically superior, offered greater level of effort, and was only slightly higher in price. DECISION The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, Inc. (RLE) protests the award of a contract to Brown University under request for proposals No. 95-040, issued by the Department of Education (DOE) for services relating to the operation and support of 10 regional educational laboratories. RLE's protest relates to a contract for operation and support of the regional educational laboratory for the northeast region of the United States which includes Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. RLE primarily argues that the award was improper because Brown's proposal was technically inferior to RLE's and more expensive; RLE also contends that there were various improprieties in the agency's actions during the acquisition. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to the firm submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government considering five technical factors and price. The five factors (and weights, based on 125 possible points) were as follows: quality of technical approach (35 points); quality of management plan (25 points); quality of personnel (20 points); corporate performance and capability (20 points); and quality of the offeror's proposed specialty area (25 points). (Within each evaluation criterion, the points were further divided among numerous subfactors.) Two proposals--Brown's and RLE's--were received, and found to be within the competitive range. Following discussions and site visits at each firm's facility, the agency requested best and final offers (BAFO). Brown's BAFO received an evaluation score of 108.2 points, and RLE's received 109.2 points. Brown's proposed cost was $24,329,252, and RLE's was $24,050,000. Notwithstanding RLE's slightly higher technical score, the agency ultimately rated Brown's proposal technically superior to RLE's, and determined that this superiority offset Brown's slightly higher price. DOE therefore made award to Brown. BROWN'S COMPLIANCE WITH 20 U.S.C. sec. 6041 Under 20 U.S.C. sec. 6041(h)(6) (1994), each regional laboratory must establish a governing board comprised of representatives from various specified constituent organizations and groups (such as teachers, state educational representatives and commissioners, and educational researchers). By the terms of the statute, the governing board is required to be the sole entity responsible for guiding and directing the regional laboratory, determining the regional agenda, and performing various other oversight functions. The RFP required compliance with the statute and called for a governing board to be in place within 2 months of the award date.