Northwest Procurement Institute, Inc., B-286345, November 17, 2000

B-286345 Nov 17, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST The agency's exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal was reasonably determined not to be one of the most highly rated. Offerors were informed that the agency preferred to receive web-based instruction for the acquisition courses. The following technical evaluation factors and associated point values were identified: Factor Maximum Points Personnel capability 30 Technical approach 10 Management capability 10 Past performance 50 Offerors were instructed to propose the acquisition training courses using one or more of the following listed delivery options. Web-based courses that have been reviewed by the American Council on Eduction's (ACE) College Recommendation Service. View Decision Matter of: Northwest Procurement Institute, Inc. File: B-286345 Date: November 17, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Northwest Procurement Institute, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range and award of a contract to Business Management Research Associates, Inc. (BMRA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-17-00-HHS-OS, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for training services. We deny the protest. The RFP provided for the award, on a cost/technical tradeoff basis, of a task order, level-of-effort contract for training of agency procurement personnel and program project officers for a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP listed the acquisition training courses and project officer courses that had been provided as classroom instruction in prior years by the agency. Offerors were informed that the agency preferred to receive web-based instruction for the acquisition courses; the project officer courses would be provided by way of classroom instruction. The following technical evaluation factors and associated point values were identified: Factor Maximum Points Personnel capability 30 Technical approach 10 Management capability 10 Past performance 50 Offerors were instructed to propose the acquisition training courses using one or more of the following listed delivery options, stated in descending order of preference: 1. Commercial, off-the-shelf, web-based courses that have been reviewed by the American Council on Eduction's (ACE) College Recommendation Service, or similar service, and are comparable to college-level courses and may be used as transfer credits at many participating colleges and universities. 2. Commercial, off-the-shelf traditional classroom courses that have been reviewed by the ACE's College Recommendation Service, or similar service, and are comparable to college-level courses and may be used as transfer credits at many participating colleges and universities. 3. Commercial, off-the-shelf traditional classroom courses. 4. The HHS courses listed in RFP section C delivered by traditional classroom instruction. The RFP required offerors to indicate under which delivery preference group or groups the offeror was proposing. /1/ The followng method of evaluating offers for the various delivery preferences was stated: The 1st preference group will be evaluated first and if the contracting officer determines that an adequate number of proposals are most highly rated for inclusion in the competitive range, then an evaluation of government preference options #2, 3 and 4 will NOT be undertaken. However, if the contracting officer determines not enough proposals in that preference group have been submitted to represent efficient competition, then the most highly rated proposal(s) will be retained, and evaluation of the 2nd preference group will proceed. If it is again determined that not enough proposals in the 2nd group, in combination with those retained from the 1st group, are highly rated enough to represent efficient competition, then evaluation of the 3rd preference group shall be conducted. Evaluation of the 4th preference group shall only occur if after evaluation of the 3rd group, the contracting officer determines that not enough proposals from that group in combination with those retained from the 1st and 2nd group's proposals, are highly rated enough to represent efficient competition. This process will conclude at any point the contracting officer feels enough highly rated proposals have been found to conduct an efficient competition. Should the government decide to conduct discussions, only those most highly rated proposals retained from the preference groups at whatever point efficient competition was represented will be included. RFP Sec. M, at 66. HHS received three offers, including those of Northwest and BMRA.