Research for Better Schools, Inc.

B-270774.3 Jun 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that awardee's proposal does not comply with applicable statute relating to the composition and authority of proposed governing board is denied where record shows awardee proposed board meeting all statutory requirements. Allegations relating to awardee's compliance with material informational requirements in solicitation are denied where record shows that. Protest that agency source selection official relied on documents that failed to accurately embody the opinions of the agency's technical evaluators is denied where record shows that documents presented to source selection official contained the consensus conclusions of the technical evaluators. Agency properly did not advise protester during discussions that aspects of its proposal were not viewed as favorably as same aspects of awardee's proposal. View Decision Matter of: Research for Better Schools, Inc. File: B-270774.3 Date: June 17, 1996 * Redacted Decision Protest that awardee's proposal does not comply with applicable statute relating to the composition and authority of proposed governing board is denied where record shows awardee proposed board meeting all statutory requirements. Allegations relating to awardee's compliance with material informational requirements in solicitation are denied where record shows that, in fact, awardee provided all necessary information. Protest that agency source selection official relied on documents that failed to accurately embody the opinions of the agency's technical evaluators is denied where record shows that documents presented to source selection official contained the consensus conclusions of the technical evaluators. Agency properly did not advise protester during discussions that aspects of its proposal were not viewed as favorably as same aspects of awardee's proposal; such relative weaknesses are not matters for discussion, as they do not relate to deficiencies found to protester's proposal, but rather to fundamental differences in the offerors' proposed solutions. Attorneys DECISION Research for Better Schools, Inc. (RBS) protests the award of a contract to Temple University under request for proposals (RFP) No. 95-040, issued by the Department of Education (DOE) for the operation of a mid-Atlantic regional educational laboratory. RBS contends that the agency improperly evaluated proposals, failed to engage in adequate discussions and made an irrational award decision. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a 5-year cost reimbursement contract that requires the contractor to perform research and implement broad- based, systemic school improvement strategies. [1] Award was to be made to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the best overall value to the government, considering price and numerous technical factors. The technical factors (and relative weights based on a possible 125 point evaluation scale) 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 area, the points were further divided among various subfactors.) DOE received three initial proposals including RBS' and Temple's (the third was excluded from the competitive range and is not relevant here). The agency conducted discussions, solicited technical proposal revisions, obtained best and final offers (BAFO) and then evaluated the BAFOs. RBS' BAFO received an average technical score of 94 points and Temple's a score of 93.5 points; RBS' evaluated price was $21,197,005 and Temple's $21,000,000. On the basis of these evaluation results, the agency made award to Temple, finding that its proposal represented the best overall value to the government. In this regard, the agency found that, despite its slightly lower average technical point score, Temple's proposal, in fact, was technically superior to RBS'. The agency also concluded that Temple's proposal offered the better value from a cost standpoint because its evaluated cost was lower than RBS' and because it offered more professional hours over the life of the contract. COMPLIANCE WITH 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6041 RBS maintains that Temple's regional laboratory will not comply with the terms of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 6041(h)(6) (1994), which requires each laboratory to establish a governing board comprised of representatives from various constituent organizations and groups (such as teachers, state educational representatives and commissioners, and educational researchers). The statute further requires that the governing board be "the sole entity" responsible for guiding and directing the regional laboratory, determining the regional agenda, and performing various oversight functions.