Matter of: Lyudmila Franke; Maria Reznikova; Alexander Reznikov

Matter of: Lyudmila Franke; Maria Reznikova; Alexander Reznikov TITLE: Matter of: Lyudmila Franke; Maria Reznikova; Alexander Reznikov BNUMBER: B-275164; B-275164.2; B-275164.3; B-275165; B-275165.2; B-275165.3;B-275166; B-275166.2; B-275166.3 DATE: December 18, 1996 ********************************************************************** Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D.C. 20548 Decision Matter of: Lyudmila Franke; Maria Reznikova; Alexander Reznikov File: B-275164; B-275164.2; B-275164.3; B-275165; B-275165.2; B-275165.3; B-275166; B-275166.2; B-275166.3 Date: December 18, 1996 Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., for the protesters. Capt. William R. Hinchman and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protests that contracting agency improperly evaluated protesters' quotations as "unqualified" and ineligible for award because they failed to submit sufficient information for the agency to determine that they met a minimum mandatory qualification is denied where the record confirms the validity of the agency's evaluation; given the presence of at least four "qualified" individuals under each of the solicitations at issue, protesters are not interested parties to challenge the evaluation of the awardees' quotations since they would not be in line for award even if their protests were sustained. DECISION Lyudmila Franke, Maria Reznikova, and Alexander Reznikov protest the Army's decision not to issue them purchase orders under requests for quotations (RFQ) Nos. DAJA02-96-Q-9046, DAJA02-96-Q-9047, and DAJA02-96-Q-9048, issued to obtain the services of instructors at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch, Germany. The protesters allege that the Army's evaluation of their quotations as "unqualified" was improper and motivated by bad faith and antisemitism. We deny the protests. The United States and German Departments of Defense established the Center to train former Eastern Bloc military and high-level civilian personnel in how to operate a military force in a democratic environment. The Center's Institute for Eurasian Studies and its Arms Control Division (ACD), which issued these requirements, deal primarily with military combat equipment as identified in various international treaties. 4211218 The Army issued these solicitations on behalf of the ACD on September 13, 1996. RFQ No. DAJA02-96-Q-9046 anticipated the award of two contracts for treaty verification instructors; RFQ No. DAJA02-96-Q-9047 anticipated the award of one contract for an assistant course developer-military and one contract for an assistant course developer-consecutive interpretation; and RFQ No. DAJA02-96-Q-9048 anticipated the award of one contract for a Russian language instructor. The RFQs, issued pursuant to the simplified acquisition procedures found at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 13, contemplated the award of contracts which would run for 1 base year and 1 option year. Quotations would be evaluated under three technical factors--education, language, and professional experience--and each RFQ contained a list of minimum mandatory qualifications related to these factors. One of the minimum mandatory qualifications considered under the most important factor, professional experience, concerned military experience. The combined technical factors were considered to be equal to price, and award would be made to the individuals submitting the most advantageous proposals. The protesters were among numerous individuals submitting quotations under these solicitations. The Army's evaluation board evaluated the quotations by assigning point scores under the technical evaluation factors and their components.1 The quotations of all three protesters under all three solicitations were determined to be unacceptable--and the protesters deemed "unqualified"--because their submissions did not contain sufficient information to show that they met the minimum mandatory qualification concerning military experience.2 The Army considered the 1The protesters' complaint that the evaluation documents do not contain narrative explanations of their strengths and weaknesses overlooks the fact that such narratives are not required under simplified acquisition procedures. FAR � 13.1062(b)(1) (FAC 90-40). 2The individual evaluation sheets indicate other shortcomings in these quotations, but the final ranking sheets and agency submissions here suggest that the chief failing concerned the military experience qualification. Ms. Franke's quotation in response to the assistant course developer-consecutive interpretation position is an exception, as it was rejected on the basis of a failure to meet a mandatory education qualification.