ICF Incorporated, LLC

B-414247.2 Apr 03, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The University of Hawaii (U of H), of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the Department of Education's award of a contract to Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning International (McRel), of Denver, Colorado, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. ED-IES-15-R-0016 for various research and support services aimed at furthering a range of educational objectives. U of H challenges multiple aspects of the agency's proposal evaluation. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  The University of Hawaii File:  B-414247.2 Date:  April 3, 2017 Richard C. Seder, The University of Hawaii, for the protester. Charles R. Lucy, Esq., Holland & Hart LLP, for Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning International, the intervenor. Justin V. Briones, Esq. and Jose Otero, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency misevaluated proposals under the solicitation’s evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and, following submission of the agency’s report responding to the protest allegations, protester failed to submit any substantive response to the agency’s comprehensive report. DECISION The University of Hawaii (U of H), of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the Department of Education’s award of a contract to Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning International (McRel), of Denver, Colorado, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. ED-IES-15-R-0016 for various research and support services aimed at furthering a range of educational objectives.  U of H challenges multiple aspects of the agency’s proposal evaluation.    We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 5, 2016, the agency issued RFP No. ED-IES-15-R-0016, seeking proposals for offerors to serve as Regional Educational Laboratories (REL)[1] in each of several regions.[2]  Offerors were advised that the successful contractor will be responsible for three types of activities:  (1) applied research; (2) dissemination of scientifically-valid research; and (3) technical assistance related to application and use of scientifically-valid research.  RFP at 40. The solicitation provided that award would be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff between cost/price and technical factors; stated that cost/price “will be significantly less important than technical merit”; and established the following technical factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) quality and credibility of the technical approach; (2) technical and managerial qualifications and experience of the proposed project director and deputy director; (3) qualifications of the non-director/non-deputy director project staff; (4) quality and feasibility of proposed plans contained within the three “Concept Papers” required by [solicitation] appendix A; (5) soundness of the management plan and timelines; (6) organizational capabilities, experience, and resources; (7) small business participation; and (8) past performance.  RFP at 141. With regard to evaluation of cost/price, the solicitation identified the estimated annual funding levels for each region,[3] and provided that each offeror’s proposal should “make the most of available funding.”  RFP at 145.  More specifically, the solicitation stated: [T]he Department expects that each offeror will propose a budget that utilizes the maximum projected funding level for each region.  An offeror gains nothing by proposing a lower cost/price than the maximum amount provided [by the funding estimate.]  Each offeror is expected to use the maximum amount available to each region to provide the most benefit possible to each region.  An offeror with an inferior technical proposal but lower proposed budget will not overtake an offeror with a technically excellent proposal and a budget that proposes to use the maximum regional allocation. Id. at 132.  On April 5, the agency received 3 proposals for the Pacific region, including proposals from U of H and McRel.  Thereafter, the agency established a competitive range consisting of U of H and McRel, and conducted two rounds of discussions.  Final revised proposals were submitted on December 1.  Thereafter, the proposals were evaluated as follows:[4]   McRel U of H 1.  Quality and Credibility of Technical  Approach Excellent Marginal 2.  Qualifications/Experience of Project Director and Deputy Director Excellent Satisfactory 3.