National Center For Family Literacy, B-288134; B-288134.2, September 20, 2001

National Center For Family Literacy, B-288134; B-288134.2, September 20, 2001 TITLE: National Center For Family Literacy, B-288134; B-288134.2, September 20, 2001 BNUMBER: B-288134; B-288134.2 DATE: September 20, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: National Center For Family Literacy File: B-288134; B-288134.2 Date: September 20, 2001 Edward Waters, Esq., and Jennifer D. Leonard, Esq., Feldesman, Tucker, Leifer, Fidell & Bank, for the protester. Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against agency's rejection of proposal as technically deficient, and therefore unacceptable, is denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with solicitation's evaluation criteria. DECISION The National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) protests the failure of the Department of Education (DOE) to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. ED-00-R-0061, for technical and analytical support services. NCFL argues that the agency misevaluated its proposal and, as a result, improperly determined that it was technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts to perform technical and analytical support services in one or more of nine identified issue areas. Agency Report (AR), exh. 10, Revised Statement of Work, at 3. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated under several technical areas: management and staffing plan (40 possible points), personnel qualifications/key personnel (40 points), organizational experience (20 points), and small business participation (10 points); past performance was also to be evaluated (and was worth a possible 36 points). RFP at 82-85. The technical and past performance criteria together were significantly more important than price. The RFP stated that contracts would be awarded only to offerors whose proposals were deemed to have no deficiencies. RFP at 82. [1] The agency received a large number of proposals, and after evaluating them decided to make award on the basis of initial offers. Of the 39 large business proposals received (the RFP provided for the separate evaluation of proposals received from large and small businesses, RFP at 82), DOE determined that 35 were without deficiencies and made award to those offerors. The agency determined that the remaining four large business proposals, including the protester's, were deficient, and therefore technically unacceptable. In this regard, NCFL's proposal received a consensus past performance score of 36 (out of a possible 36) points, but a technical score of only 48 (out of a possible 110) points, [2] for a combined score of 84 points. In addition to numeric scores, the agency evaluators prepared narrative materials reflecting the evaluated deficiencies. NCFL challenges the evaluation of its technical proposal. In reviewing protests challenging an agency's evaluation of technical proposals, our Office will not independently reevaluate the proposals; rather, our review is limited to considering whether the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. McHargue Constr. Co., B-279715, July 16, 1998, 98-2 CPD para. 21 at 5. We find nothing improper in the evaluation here. NCFL asserts that its proposal was improperly downgraded for proposing multiple project directors, citing the language of the personnel qualifications/key personnel evaluation criterion, which provides: Key personnel [may] include the manager(s), supervisor(s) and project director(s) proposed in Labor Classification I or II whom the Offeror proposes to assign full time responsibility for the performance of the prospective task orders awarded under this contract. RFP at 83. NCFL concludes that offerors were permitted to propose multiple project directors, and that its proposal therefore should not have been downgraded based on its offering 15 task order project directors. NCFL's argument is without merit. The record shows that, under the personnel qualifications/key personnel evaluation criterion, the agency did not downgrade NCFL's proposal for offering multiple project directors; indeed, no mention is made in the evaluation materials relating to this criterion of the firm's proposed management approach. Instead, the evaluators found NCFL's proposal "inadequate and unacceptable" under the personnel qualifications/key personnel criterion because of an insufficient commitment of high-level staff to performance during the early years of the contract. AR exh. 138 at 17.