B-309947, Central Texas College, October 12, 2007

B-309947 Oct 12, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Central Texas College (CTC) protests the award of a contract to Richard Milburn High School, Inc. (RMHS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SE7-07-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army for foreign language training at various locations. The protester principally contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its subcontracting plan was unacceptable, and improperly elected not to hold discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision B-309947, Central Texas College, October 12, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: CentralTexasCollege File: B-309947 Date: October 12, 2007 James R. Lindley, Esq., Lindley, Wiley & Duskie, P.C., for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Lei B. Greenspan, Esq., Smith, Pachter, McWhorter, PLC, for Richard Milburn High School, Inc., an intervenor. Peter F. Pontzer, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency properly could make award on basis of initial proposals where solicitation advised offerors of this possibility and contracting officer's decision not to engage in discussions was reasonable. 2. Protest challenging agency's rejection of protester's proposal because the protester submitted an unacceptable subcontracting plan is denied where the solicitation specifically stated that the quality and completeness of the subcontracting plan would be evaluated, and advised that no award would be made to an offeror whose proposal did not include an acceptable subcontracting plan. DECISION CentralTexasCollege (CTC) protests the award of a contract to Richard Milburn High School, Inc. (RMHS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SE7-07-R-0005, issued by the Department of the Army for foreign language training at various locations. The protester principally contends that the agency unreasonably determined that its subcontracting plan was unacceptable, and improperly elected not to hold discussions. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide instructors for specifically listed languages and dialects and anticipated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery requirements contract for a base year with four 1-year options. The RFP advised that award would be made to the lowest-priced technically-acceptable offeror with an acceptable subcontracting plan (if applicable), and past performance presenting no higher risk than –moderate risk.— The RFP further advised offerors that proposals would be evaluated under the following equally-weighted factors: accreditation, technical approach, past performance and relevant experience, and small business subcontracting plan. RFP sect. M.2. The RFP specifically warned offerors that no award would be made to an offeror that did not have an acceptable subcontracting plan (if applicable). Id. As relevant here, the RFP evaluation criteria stated that the quality and completeness of the subcontracting plan would be evaluated and that proposals would be rated either –acceptable— or –non-acceptable.— RFP sect. M.5. As part of this assessment, the RFP advised that the agency would review the offerors' designation of small business subcontractors to support specific task areas, the percentage of total contract dollars allocated to small businesses, and the probability that the proposed plan would meet its goals. Id.The RFP also stated that the government would use price analysis techniques to determine reasonableness of prices. Id.Finally, the solicitation informed offerors that the government intended to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions and that, therefore, each offeror's initial offer should contain its best terms from both a technical and price standpoint. The agency received six proposals. The evaluation results with regard to the proposals of CTC and RHMS were as follows: Offeror Accreditation Technical Approach Past Performance Small Business Plan Price CTC Go Go Low Risk Non acceptable $33.7 million RMHS Go Go Moderate Risk Acceptable $30.3 million Agency Report (AR) at 6. With respect to the RFP's subcontracting plan requirements, CTC's proposal stated that it anticipated limited opportunities for subcontracting but would make every effort to involve Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) in any subcontracting opportunity. CTC Proposal, vol. IV at 1.