Council for Logistics Research, Inc.

B-417974 Dec 04, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Council for Logistics Research, Inc. (CLR), a small business, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Flatter, Inc., a small business, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7014-19-R-A004, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force, for services in support of the Air Force Senior Leadership Development Program (AFSLDP). CLR challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal, and the agency's resulting source selection decision. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Council for Logistics Research, Inc. File:  B-417974 Date:  December 4, 2019 James A. Hughes, Esq., Hughes Law, PLC, and Roger V. Abbott, Esq., Mayer Brown LLP, for the protester. Alexander J. Brittin, Esq., Brittin Law Group, PLLC, and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., Smith, Pachter and McWhorter, PLC, for Flatter, Inc., the intervenor. Kyle E. Gilbertson, Esq., and Alexis J. Bernstein, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. DECISION Council for Logistics Research, Inc. (CLR), a small business, of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Flatter, Inc., a small business, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA7014-19-R-A004, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force, for services in support of the Air Force Senior Leadership Development Program (AFSLDP).  CLR challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal, and the agency’s resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on April 29, 2019, and subsequently amended five times, sought proposals for a full range of technical, functional, and managerial expertise to support continual development, sustainment, enhancement, and facilitation of the AFSLDP by providing analysis, expertise, and guidance to enhance the Air Force’s force development program and senior leader training.  RFP at 6.[1]  The contractor will provide professional support services to assist with:  the development of plans and policy; courses and training (including commercial off-the-shelf courses, computer based training, and instructor-led custom courses); and administration, management of the leadership portfolio, meeting facilitation, and program oversight.  Id.  The RFP was issued as a negotiated commercial item procurement pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation parts 12 and 15, and as a set-aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.  Id. at 1, 6.  The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with fixed-price and time-and-material contract line items and a 5-year ordering period.  Id. at 3-6. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; and (3) price.  RFP, attach., Evaluation Criteria, at 1.  The non-price factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than price.  Id.  Additionally, prior to evaluating proposals under the three evaluation criteria, the Air Force was to perform an initial acceptability evaluation under certain “gateway to oral presentations” criteria.  Id. at 1-3.  Only the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the technical approach evaluation factor is relevant to the issues presented in the protest. As to an offeror’s technical approach, the RFP included two technical scenarios, both of which included:  a problem statement; desired outcomes; planning inputs; and enumerated items that offerors were required to address (e.g., the method for identifying target competencies and/or skills to develop with the proposed solution, and target course length).[2]  Id.