Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd., B-294035, July 30, 2004

B-294035 Jul 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd. (KHA) protests the award of contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ-04-R-0019, issued by the Department of State, for the design and delivery of 2-day effective public speaking/executive media courses. KHA primarily objects to the agencys evaluation of its proposal and the agencys source selection decision. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294035, Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd., July 30, 2004 Decision Matter of: Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd. File: B-294035 Date: July 30, 2004 Kathryn Huddleston for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that evaluation and source selection decision were flawed is denied where the record shows that the agencys evaluation and source selection decision were reasonable and consistent with evaluation factors. DECISION Kathryn Huddleston & Associates, Ltd. (KHA) protests the award of contracts under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ-04-R-0019, issued by the Department of State, for the design and delivery of 2-day effective public speaking/executive media courses. KHA primarily objects to the agencys evaluation of its proposal and the agencys source selection decision. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 17, 2004, contemplated the award of fixed-price contracts for a base year and four 1-year option periods. The contractors will develop and deliver 2-day workshops on communicating effectively before a live audience, as well as on television and radio for the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) of the Department of State. RFP C.1. The courses will be offered to Department of State personnel, including ambassador-designates. Id. Offerors were required, among other things, to prepare and coach participants for one videotaped oral presentation and for one videotaped mock television interview, and to provide feedback, critique, and discussions during playback. RFP C.3.2. Offerors were to be experienced media and communications consultants and trainers. The RFP provided for award of contracts to firms whose proposals the agency determined represented the best values to the government. The RFP contained three technical evaluation factors--(1) the offerors past performance experience in delivering this type of training; (2) the offerors qualifications as established by the resumes of the course facilitator/moderator and proposed key instructors/speakers; and (3) the quality, coherence, and appropriateness of the proposed approach or methodology (including course design) to perform the required work. The RFP provided that an offeror must submit course material with its technical proposal for each course type. RFP M. [1] The agency received 23 proposals by the closing date. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated eight proposals as excellent, three proposals as good, eight proposals as fair, two proposals as poor, and two proposals as unsatisfactory. KHAs proposal was rated fair. Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, Technical Evaluation of Proposals. The agency subsequently awarded contracts to the eight offerors whose proposals received an excellent rating. KHA was notified of the awards in a letter dated April28. KHA filed this protest with our Office on May 4. KHA principally objects to the agencys evaluation of its proposal and the agencys decision not to award the firm a contract. KHA maintains that it proposed an experienced and highly qualified instructional team. Protest at 2. The evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency since the agency is responsible for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them. Marine Animal Prods. Intl, Inc. , B-247150.2, July 13, 1992, 92-2 CPD 16 at 5. In reviewing an agencys evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals, but instead will examine the agencys evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitations stated evaluation criteria. MAR, Inc. , B-246889, Apr. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD 367 at 4. An offerors mere disagreement with the agencys evaluation does not render the evaluation unreasonable. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , B-259694.2, B-259694.3, June 16, 1995, 95-2 CPD 51 at 18. The record supports the TEPs rating of KHAs proposal as fair. For example, the TEP found that the protesters approach to media training was weak and that the protesters sample course materials failed to provide for a video practice session as required by the solicitation.