DRA Software Training, B-289128; B-289128.2, December 13, 2001

DRA Software Training, B-289128; B-289128.2, December 13, 2001 TITLE: DRA Software Training, B-289128; B-289128.2, December 13, 2001 BNUMBER: B-289128; B-289128.2 DATE: December 13, 2001 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: DRA Software Training File: B-289128; B-289128.2 Date: December 13, 2001 Ronna L. Fickbohm, Esq., Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, for the protester. Maj. Kateni T. Leakehe, Department of the Army, for the agency. Tania 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 unreasonably evaluated awardee's proposal and improperly evaluated price are denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. DECISION DRA Software Training protests the award of a contract to Internet Institute USA, Inc. (IIUSA) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT63-01-R-0032, issued by the Department of the Army to obtain computer training and associated supplies at Fort Huachuca, Arizona. DRA contends that the Army unreasonably evaluated IIUSA's technical capability and past performance, and improperly evaluated price. We deny the protests. The solicitation, issued as a commercial item procurement, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to a small business to conduct these courses over 1 base year and up to 3 option years. Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical capability of the school or company, its particular instructors to be used on this work, and the text and other materials to be used to meet the government requirement; (2) past performance; and (3) price. The first two factors, when combined, were twice as important as price. RFP at 17-18. Offers were required to include completed pricing of the schedule of services; a description of any services offered above the solicitation's requirements, such as technical support, and pricing information, if necessary; two references for past performance information, with a preference for experience with military/tactical situations; and a statement identifying colleges/universities which offer college credits for the offeror's courses and applicable degree programs to which the credits can be applied. Id. at 14. With respect to price, the Army planned to evaluate offers by adding the total price proposed for all options to the total price proposed for the basic requirement. Id. at 18. The Army received three proposals by the closing date, including those from DRA and IIUSA. The Army conducted a comparative evaluation of offerors' technical capabilities and a past performance evaluation based upon information obtained from references. The Army gave DRA's proposal the highest technical rating based on its ability to make quick changes to the courses as required and its clear outline of college accreditation and degree programs. The Army gave IIUSA's proposal the second-highest technical rating because it proposed instructors with equal qualifications as those proposed by DRA, but its course descriptions were not as detailed and its college accreditation program was not as clear. The Army found that references for both firms gave them the highest marks for quality, knowledge, and timeliness and, as a result, rated both offerors as excellent-low risk for past performance. IIUSA's offer was the lowest-priced, at $1,719,052, and DRA's offer was the highest-priced, at $2,735,869. The Army concluded that DRA had a slight technical advantage over IIUSA, but that DRA's significantly higher cost could not be justified. Award was made to IIUSA and these protests followed. DRA alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated IIUSA's past performance as excellent-low risk. DRA acknowledges that IIUSA's past performance rating was based upon the experience of certain key personnel--the quality of which it does not challenge--but asserts that IIUSA should have received a neutral past performance rating because it has no past performance as an entity. The evaluation of technical proposals, including the evaluation of past performance, is a matter within the contracting agency's discretion, since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Federal Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-260289, B-260490, May 24, 1995, 95-1 CPD para. 261 at 3. In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, we will not reevaluate the proposals, but will examine the record of the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Id. The record here provides no basis to object to the evaluation of proposals. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect.