Bashen Corporation

B-412032.2 Dec 03, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bashen Corporation, of Houston, Texas, protests the award of a contract to the Society for Diversity, Inc. d/b/a Institute for Diversity Certification (IDC), of Plainfield, Indiana, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA7014-15-T-1007 for training services. Bashen argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm's proposal and improperly awarded the contract to a firm that was ineligible for award. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Bashen Corporation File:  B-412032.2 Date:  December 3, 2015 Janet E. Bashen, Bashen Corporation, for the protester. Leah Smiley, Institute for Diversity Certification, for the intervenor. Capt. Christopher M. Kovach and Lt. Col. Damund E. Williams, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that the agency improperly awarded a contract to an ineligible vendor is denied where the record shows that the agency reasonably determined that the awardee was responsible and eligible for award. DECISION Bashen Corporation, of Houston, Texas, protests the award of a contract to the Society for Diversity, Inc. d/b/a Institute for Diversity Certification (IDC), of Plainfield, Indiana, by the Department of the Air Force under request for quotations (RFQ) No. FA7014-15-T-1007 for training services.  Bashen argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the firm’s proposal and improperly awarded the contract to a firm that was ineligible for award. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on May 27, 2015, sought quotations from vendors to provide a two-week diversity and inclusion management training to 25 agency personnel.  RFQ at 3.  Award was to be made on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis, with technical capability as the only non-price factor.  Id. at 7.  Under the technical capability factor, the agency was to evaluate whether an offeror demonstrated the following: [H]ow they plan to complete and deliver the pre-existing, ready-to-go complete training, addressing the requirements in the [Performance Work Statement (PWS)], with requisite instructors delivering material using interactive methods and demonstrating how they will meet 100% of the competencies and objectives outlined in the PWS. Id.  The PWS included various requirements and deliverables the awardee was required to meet.  Id. at 29-35. The Air Force received eight proposals in response to the solicitation.  After an initial evaluation, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the quotations of Bashen and IDC.  Agency Report (AR), exh. 21, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 1.  The agency sent Bashen an evaluation notice identifying six deficiencies in the firm’s proposal.  AR, exh. 14, Evaluation Notice (EN), at 1.  Bashen responded to the deficiencies identified by the agency.  AR, exh. 15, EN Response, at 1-5.  However, in the final evaluation of Bashen’s technical quotation, the agency found that three deficiencies had not been resolved.  AR, exh. 17, Bashen Final Technical Evaluation, at 3-4; Contracting Officer’s Supp. Statement at 7-9.  Bashen’s technical quotation was found to be technically unacceptable and award was made to IDC in the amount of $137,375.  AR, exh. 21, SSD, at 1. After the award decision, Bashen contacted the contracting officer alleging that IDC had made certain false statements, was an administratively dissolved company under relevant state law, and had filed for bankruptcy.  AR, exh. 26, Memorandum for Record, at 1.  The contracting officer indicated that prior to award he had reviewed the System for Award Management (SAM) website to ensure that IDC was eligible for award.  Subsequent to Bashen’s complaint, the contracting officer indicated that he continued to find IDC to be responsible and eligible for award.  Id.  This protest followed.[1] DISCUSSION Bashen first challenges the agency’s determination that its proposal was technically unacceptable, disputing each deficiency assigned to its proposal.  Our review of the record provides us no basis to question the agency’s decision. In this regard, 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 for accommodating them.  SRA Int’l, Inc., B-408624, B-408624.2, Nov. 25, 2013, 2013 CPD ¶ 275 at 4.