B-299798.2, Council for Adult & Experiential Learning, August 28, 2007

B-299798.2 Aug 28, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Council for Adult & Experiential Learning (CAEL) protests the award of a contract to IBM Global Business Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. W74V8H-06-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Continuing Education System (ACES), for integration and other technical services for the GoArmyEd program. The protester contends that the terms of the solicitation created a competition that was biased in favor of IBM, the award to IBM was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), and the agency unreasonably evaluated the offerors' proposals. We dismiss in part and deny in part the protest. View Decision B-299798.2, Council for Adult & Experiential Learning, August 28, 2007 Decision Matter of: Council for Adult & Experiential Learning File: B-299798.2 Date: August 28, 2007 John R. Zappa for the protester. Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., Amy Laderberg O'Sullivan, Esq., and Adelicia Cliffe Taylor, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for IBM Global Business Services, an intervenor. Maj. Geraldine R. Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Post-award challenges to solicitation terms are dismissed as untimely and challenges to agency's evaluation of proposals are denied because they are based on untimely allegations and fail to specifically identify flaws with the agency's evaluation. DECISION The Council for Adult & Experiential Learning (CAEL) protests the award of a contract to IBM Global Business Services under request for proposals (RFP) No. W74V8H-06-R-0007, issued by the Department of the Army, Army Continuing Education System (ACES), for integration and other technical services for the GoArmyEd program. The protester contends that the terms of the solicitation created a competition that was biased in favor of IBM, the award to IBM was tainted by organizational conflicts of interest (OCI), and the agency unreasonably evaluated the offerors' proposals. We dismiss in part and deny in part the protest. BACKGROUND The GoArmyEd program offers active duty soldiers –anytime, anywhere— access to educational opportunities from accredited postsecondary education institutions through an online web-based portal. The program allows soldiers to select a degree program, enroll in and access courses, obtain education counseling, and access financial aid and other support services. The program also provides infrastructure and logistical support for schools and education service providers. GoArmyEd is intended to fully replace the existing eArmyU program, under which soldier education services have been previously provided, and which now provides certain limited services. IBM is the incumbent contractor for eArmyU. The agency issued the RFP on September 29, 2006, seeking proposals to provide lead integration and other technical services required to ensure continuous availability and reliability of the GoArmyEd web portal and associated infrastructure. The performance work statement (PWS) included requirements to complete the transition from the eArmyU program to GoArmyEd, maintain the GoArmyEd web portal, provide technical, management and logistic support for the education service providers, and provide support for future expansion of the GoArmyEd program.[1] The RFP anticipated award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract with a 1-year base term, and nine 1-year options. The work under the contract will be performed through the issuance of firm fixed-price and time-and-materials task orders. The RFP identified five non-cost/price evaluation factors, listed here in descending order of importance: technical approach, management capabilities and approach, corporate recent and relevant experience, small business participation plan, and past performance. RFP sect. M-2. The RFP stated that –[t]he non-Price Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price/Cost factor.— Id. sect. M.1. Offerors were informed that their proposals must receive a rating of at least –acceptable— under the first three evaluation factors in order to be eligible for award. Id.The RFP also stated that offerors' proposed prices would be evaluated for price realism and reasonableness. Id. Three offerors submitted proposals in response to the solicitation: IBM, Savantage Solutions, and CAEL.[2] CAEL's proposal included the participation of a subcontractor, AutoDP, Inc. The RFP stated that the Army intended to make an award based on offerors' initial proposals, without conducting discussions, RFP sect. L.2.a; consistent with this provision, the agency did not conduct discussions with offerors. As relevant to the protest, the agency evaluated the offerors' proposals as follows: IBM CAEL 1.