International Preparedness Associates Inc.

B-415416 Dec 18, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ACADEMI Training Center, LLC dba Constellis (ACADEMI), of Moyock, North Carolina, protests the issuance of two task orders to DECO, Inc., of Champlin, Minnesota, by the Department of State under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA17R0163 for antiterrorism training to foreign law enforcement and civilian government officials worldwide. The protester contends that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in the agency unreasonably finding its task order proposals ineligible for award. The protester further argues that the agency abused its discretion by failing to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. View Decision 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:  ACADEMI Training Center, LLC dba Constellis File:  B-415416 Date:  December 18, 2017 David S. Cohen, Esq., John J. O'Brien, Esq., Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., Cohen Mohr LLP, for the protester. Mark R. Gleeman, Esq., Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, for the intervenor. Morgan L. Cosby, Esq., Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., and John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly rejected protester's task order proposals is denied where the protester proposed prices exceeding the prices established in its indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract, contrary to the solicitation. 2.  GAO will not review a protester's assertion that an agency abused its discretion by failing to conduct discussions when the solicitation expressly advised that the agency intends to make award without discussions. DECISION ACADEMI Training Center, LLC dba Constellis (ACADEMI), of Moyock, North Carolina, protests the issuance of two task orders to DECO, Inc., of Champlin, Minnesota, by the Department of State under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA17R0163 for antiterrorism training to foreign law enforcement and civilian government officials worldwide.  The protester contends that the solicitation contained a latent ambiguity that resulted in the agency unreasonably finding its task order proposals ineligible for award.  The protester further argues that the agency abused its discretion by failing to conduct discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2017, the agency issued the RFP to simultaneously award up to seven indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts, and seven task orders covering six geographic regions and its Special Programs Embassy Augmentation Response (SPEAR) program.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 6.  The six geographical regions for which task orders were awarded are:  AF-Africa; EAP-East Asia Pacific; EUR-Europe; NEA-Near East Asia; SCA-South Central Asia; and WHA-Western Hemisphere.  Id. at 41.  Each IDIQ contract, comprised of a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, contemplates the issuance of both fixed-price and cost reimbursement task orders.  Id. at 6.  The IDIQ contracts establish, among other prices, fixed prices for 69 standard training courses; the course prices are predicated on daily instructor labor rates and an allocation of program management office (PMO) costs.[2]  Id. at 6-7.  The purpose of the PMO is to manage the instructor pool, deploy international mobile training teams, coordinate training and manage material, among other things.  Id. at 15.  Regarding the submission of price proposals for the IDIQ contracts, the RFP instructed offerors to complete a price proposal workbook, consisting of multiple worksheets, to depict the development of course prices and daily instructor rates proposed for the base and option periods.  RFP at 95.  To this end, the RFP specifically instructed: In the event that the Offeror captures, reports and applies costs in a different [manner] than depicted in this worksheet the formula can be modified accordingly.  The Offeror shall include a discussion that specifically addresses what indirect costs are included in each provisional rate pool and enumerate the application and any changes made to the worksheet formulas needed to correctly depict the generation of these indirect cost pools in the Price Proposal Notes. Id.; see also AR, Tab 2a, RFP attach.