Kathryn Huddleston and Associates, Ltd., B-289453, March 11, 2002

B-289453 Mar 11, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejection of its bid for educational services, contending that the Corps improperly evaluated its proposal and only conducted discussions with the awardee. GAO held that the Corps: (1) improperly excluded the protester's low-priced quote from the competitive range and (2) conducted discussions with only the awardee. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that the Corps: (1) include the protester's quote in the competitive range; (2) conduct discussion with the protester and the awardee; (3) request revised quotes; (4) make a new source selection decision; and (5) reimburse the protester reasonable costs of filing and pursing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. View Decision Kathryn Huddleston and Associates, Ltd., B-289453, March 11, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Kathryn Huddleston and Associates, Ltd. (KHA) protests the rejection of its quote and award of a purchase order to Act II Management Consultants under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DACW87-01-Q-0160, issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for educational services. KHA challenges the evaluation of its quote and complains that the agency conducted discussions with only Act II. We sustain the protest. /1/ The RFQ was issued electronically as a combined synopsis and solicitation as a small business set-aside. /2/ The RFQ identified the procurement as a commercial item acquisition under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 and, as amended, provided that the agency would use simplified acquisition procedures under FAR part 13. Agency Report, Tab D-1, Combined RFQ/Synopsis (Sept. 13, 2001); Tab D-4, Revised Combined RFQ/Synopsis Amendment (Oct. 5, 2001). The solicitation requested quotes for all services and material necessary to revise and present an instructional course entitled "Instructional Methods." Vendors were informed that the course was designed to "give students skill in developing and conducting any type of training, presentations, and briefings." Course topics included "Systematic Approach to Training, roles of the instructor, instructional objectives, communications skills, lesson planning, instructional aids, the adult learner, methods of instruction, classroom management, counseling, tests, and questioning techniques." In addition, the RFQ provided that the students in the Instructional Methods course would either have been identified by the Corps as potential instructors in the Proponent Sponsored Corps of Engineers Program or "have been charged with developing and conducting any type of training, presentations, or briefings." The RFQ provided for the award of a fixed-price order for four class sessions during a base year and for a specified number of classes in the 2 option years. Agency Report, Tab D-1, Combined RFQ/Synopsis (Sept. 13, 2001), at 1. The RFQ required vendors to provide two instructors (a lead and an assistant instructor) for each session, and stated experience and educational qualification requirements for the instructors. Vendors were required to provide resumes for the proposed instructors with their quotes establishing the following: The lead instructor should have 200 hours of teaching experience during the past 5 years in courses designed to teach instructional methodology to instructors and/or trainers. . . . . The assistant instructor should have 100 hours of teaching experience during the past 3 years in courses designed to teach instructional methodology to instructors and/or trainers. For both instructors, the RFQ required that the teaching experience include: development of learning objectives, test items, lesson planning, systematic approach to training, development and use of instructional aids and classroom management. In addition, vendors were required to "[i]dentify proposed instructors scheduled to teach each course session . . . [and] identify proposed lead and assistant instructors scheduled to teach each course session." Id. at 2. Around October 5, the Corps issued a solicitation amendment, which, for the first time, stated evaluation criteria. As amended, the RFQ provided, among other things, that quotes would be evaluated under three factors: (1) teaching experience, (2) educational qualifications, and (3) price. Factors (1) and (2) were stated to be equal in importance, and factor (3) was stated to be significantly less important than factors (1) or (2). Agency Report, Tab D-4, Revised Combined RFQ/Synopsis Amendment (Oct. 5, 2001), at 2. The agency states that the amendment was not directly distributed to vendors, but was published electronically on the CBDNET (www.cbdnet.access.gpo.gov) and the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) (www.arnet.gov/FedBizOpps/) websites. /3/ Agency Legal Memorandum at 4.