LTR Training Systems, Inc.

LTR Training Systems, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274996; B-274996.2 DATE: January 16, 1997 TITLE: LTR Training Systems, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:LTR Training Systems, Inc. File: B-274996; B-274996.2 Date:January 16, 1997 Katheryn Bradley, Esq., Partnow Sharrock & Tindall, for the protester. Jeff M. Sajdak, Esq., United States Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly determined that technical proposals were equal where protester's proposal was allegedly clearly superior is denied where record establishes that the agency reasonably evaluated the respective technical proposals and that this evaluation supports the source selection authority's determination that the proposals were substantially equal technically. As a result, the agency properly made the award on the basis of the lower proposed price. DECISION LTR Training Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Emergency Response Institute (ERI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. CS-I-96-010, issued by the United States Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, for an aviation survival training course. LTR, the incumbent contractor, alleges that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and inconsistent with the RFP criteria and that the agency improperly made price the most important evaluation factor for award, contrary to the RFP evaluation scheme. We deny the protest. The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for the development of an aviation survival training course and an aviation survival refresher course. The RFP stated that technical merit would be more important than price in the award decision, but noted that price would become the deciding factor if proposals were found to be substantially equal. The RFP further provided that among acceptable proposals with a significant difference in technical merit, the importance or weight given price would be substantially less than the importance or weight given to technical factors in the award selection. The RFP also provided that the contracting officer would determine whether technical proposals were substantially equal or whether any differences in the technical assessments were significant for purposes of evaluating the overall merit of proposals. The technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were technical approach, personnel resources, and contractor past performance. Within the technical approach category, section M identified five criteria of equal importance: (1) aviation survival training course; (2) proposed course materials; (3) practical exercise; (4) course completion standards; and (5) required equipment. Within the personnel resources criterion, three subcriteria of equal importance were listed: (1) instructor qualifications; (2) instructor certifications; and (3) staffing plan. Within the contractor past performance category, three criteria were identified: (1) quality of product or service; (2) overall customer satisfaction; and (3) quality certifications and awards. Quality of product or service was significantly more important than the other two factors which were of equal importance. Six firms submitted initial proposals by the March 28, 1996, closing date. The source selection evaluation team (SSET) consisted of four evaluators, each of whom evaluated the proposals and assigned them a numerical rating. The four ratings were then averaged and the proposals categorized as unacceptable (U), susceptible to being made acceptable (S), or acceptable (A). The initial evaluation results were as follows: Offeror Score Rating LTR 95.3 A ERI 69.0 S Offeror #3 54.5 U Offeror #4 51 U Offeror #5 48.5 U Offeror #6 43 U The SSET found LTR's proposal to be acceptable as submitted, except for an issue concerning the number of instructors to be provided during the refresher training. ERI's proposal was determined to be susceptible to being made acceptable, but the evaluation panel concluded that ERI needed to address issues concerning its equipment, instructors, and past performance.