M3 Corporation, B-278906, April 1, 1998

B-278906 Apr 01, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency was not required to conduct discussions concerning the protester's negative past performance references under an acquisition conducted under simplified acquisition procedures. Both courses were to include 40 hours of instruction over a 5-day period. Stated that technical factors were significantly more important than price. Quoters were to submit copies of training materials for evaluation purposes. 800 was low. 582 was next low. The agency remarked that M3's sample text was copied verbatim from the Coast Guard's Small Purchase Handbook. The agency was aware of past performance problems on the part of M3's president and proposed instructor. " who was prone to a "misuse of terms" and was unable to "find references for statements . . . when [statement] was wrong or challenged by others.". View Decision Matter of: M3 Corporation File: B-278906 Date: April 1, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION M3 Corporation protests the evaluation of its quotation and the award of a purchase order to Northwest Procurement Institute, Inc. (NPI) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DTCCG8-98-Q-0328, issued by the Department of Transportation, United States Coast Guard, for in-house training courses on simplified acquisition procedures, to be taught at Coast Guard facilities in Petaluma, California. We deny the protest. The Coast Guard conducted this procurement pursuant to the simplified acquisition procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 13. The RFQ, issued on December 1, 1997, solicited quotations for an instructor and instructional materials for a basic and an advanced course on simplified acquisition procedures. RFQ Simplified Acquisition Procedures (basic course) Statement of Work (SOW), Advanced Simplified Acquisition Procedures (advanced course) SOW. Both courses were to include 40 hours of instruction over a 5-day period, the basic course to be taught from January 5 through January 9, 1998, and the advanced course to be taught from January 12 through January 16. Basic course SOW Sec. 1(a), (c), Advanced course SOW Sec. 1(a), (c). The RFQ identified with specificity the topics to be covered in each course, e.g., a discussion of FAR part 13 revisions and a discussion of the various simplified acquisition techniques, Basic course SOW Sec. 1(f), (k), and simplified acquisitions subject to the Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act, Advanced course SOW Sec. 1(h), (i). The RFQ award criteria provided for award based on a cost/technical tradeoff, stated that technical factors were significantly more important than price, and listed four technical factors in descending order of importance: past performance, qualifications of instructors, sample curricula, and sample text. Under the sample curricula and sample text factors, quoters were to submit copies of training materials for evaluation purposes. Specifically, the sample curricula factor provided for an evaluation of a "typical curriculum for both an advanced and basic simplified acquisition training course," and the sample text factor provided for an evaluation of a "sample text, covering use of credit cards, which reflects Coast Guard or other agency specific requirements." The RFQ also stated that the government's knowledge of, and previous experience with, a quoter would be considered in the technical evaluation. The Coast Guard received quotes from NPI, M3, and two other firms. M3's quote of $7,800 was low, and NPI's quote of $9,582 was next low. The agency found that M3's sample text and sample curricula did not evidence that the protester understood the RFQ requirements. The agency remarked that M3's sample text was copied verbatim from the Coast Guard's Small Purchase Handbook, and that M3's sample curricula provided for instruction in areas irrelevant to the SOW or unrelated to simplified acquisition procedures, such as an introduction to publicizing requests for proposals. The agency concluded that M3 either "didn't read [the] Statement of Work, or simply used a [curriculum] from an existing course without any thought to tailoring it to [the Coast Guard's] specific requirements." In addition, the agency was aware of past performance problems on the part of M3's president and proposed instructor, who taught the basic and advanced simplified acquisition course for the Coast Guard during his tenure with another firm. The Coast Guard retained student evaluation sheets for a March 1996 course taught by M3's president, in which the students rated M3's president a "poor" or "unsatisfactory" instructor and described the course as "poor" and of "little" benefit to them. [1] For example, one student commented that he "would not sign up for another course [with] this instructor," who was prone to a "misuse of terms" and was unable to "find references for statements . . .