Richard M. Milburn High School, B-277018, August 19, 1997

B-277018 Aug 19, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protester's contention that agency misevaluated its proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation factors. Contention that agency improperly made award on the basis of initial proposals is denied where the record shows that the solicitation clearly indicated the agency's intent to make award without discussions if possible. Offerors were required to provide resumes and letters of commitment for its key personnel. Offerors were to submit separate past performance. The following evaluation factors and subfactors (with their relative weights) were identified: Factor 1 Past performance (total weight - 40 percent) Subfactor a Quality of service (30 percent) Subfactor b Timeliness of performance (30 percent) Subfactor c Cost control (20 percent) Subfactor d Business relations (10 percent) Subfactor e Customer satisfaction (10 percent) Factor 2 Technical (total weight - 35 percent) Subfactor a Pre-service instruction training plan (55 percent) Subfactor b Staffing/recruiting/hiring plan (35 percent) Subfactor c Quality control plan (10 percent) Factor 3 Price (total weight - 25 percent) The RFP advised that a firm. View Decision Matter of: Richard M. Milburn High School File: B-277018 Date: August 19, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Richard M. Milburn High School protests the award of a contract to Central Texas College (CTC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF11-96-R-0034, issued by the Department of the Army for foreign language training services. Milburn challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal and argues that the agency improperly failed to conduct discussions. [1] We deny the protest. The RFP sought offers to provide foreign language training services to Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) active duty and reserve personnel in three regional areas--I Corps, III Corps, and XVIII Airborne Corps. [2] A detailed performance work statement (PWS) described the many languages and levels of proficiency to be taught at various installations and sites throughout the country. Offerors were required to provide resumes and letters of commitment for its key personnel, such as regional directors, that would be assigned to this contract. Offerors were to submit separate past performance, technical, and price proposals for evaluation. The RFP included detailed instructions in section L for the preparation of proposals. In section M, the following evaluation factors and subfactors (with their relative weights) were identified: Factor 1 Past performance (total weight - 40 percent) Subfactor a Quality of service (30 percent) Subfactor b Timeliness of performance (30 percent) Subfactor c Cost control (20 percent) Subfactor d Business relations (10 percent) Subfactor e Customer satisfaction (10 percent) Factor 2 Technical (total weight - 35 percent) Subfactor a Pre-service instruction training plan (55 percent) Subfactor b Staffing/recruiting/hiring plan (35 percent) Subfactor c Quality control plan (10 percent) Factor 3 Price (total weight - 25 percent) The RFP advised that a firm, fixed-price requirements contract was contemplated but provided for a possibility of multiple awards by region. The contract was for a base period with up to four 1-year options. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the best overall value to the government, past performance, technical, and price factors considered. The RFP further advised that the agency might make an award based on initial proposals without conducting discussions, and that, therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror's most favorable terms from a price and technical standpoint. Six firms, including Milburn and CTC, submitted proposals by the closing date for receipt of proposals. A four-member evaluation panel independently evaluated each past performance and technical proposal, using forms on which narrative comments and numerical scores were recorded. After the individual evaluations were completed, the evaluators discussed the evaluations, calculated the average point values assigned to each evaluation factor and subfactor, calculated the average point scores overall, ranked the proposals according to their relative standing, and assigned adjectival ratings to each proposal.