Education Development Center, Inc. (72062318R00004)

B-418217,B-418217.2 Jan 27, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Education Development Center (EDC), Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Creative Associates International (CAI), of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 72062318R00004, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for educational services in Somalia. EDC alleges that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and disparately evaluated proposals. 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:  Education Development Center, Inc. File:  B-418217; B-418217.2 Date:  January 27, 2020 David S. Black, Esq., and Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., Michael E. Stamp, Esq., and Scott M. Dinner, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for Creative Associates International, the intervenor. Danielle Lindermuth, Esq., and Rachel B. Cochran, Esq., United States Agency for International Development, for the agency. Joshua R. Gillerman, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency failed to raise significant weaknesses during discussions is denied where the weaknesses were not significant and need not have been raised. 2.  Protest that agency disparately evaluated proposals is denied where the difference in ratings stem from differences in the offerors’ proposals. DECISION Education Development Center (EDC), Inc., of Waltham, Massachusetts, protests the award of a contract to Creative Associates International (CAI), of Washington, D.C., under request for proposals (RFP) No. 72062318R00004, issued by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for educational services in Somalia.  EDC alleges that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions and disparately evaluated proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on November 16, 2018, contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services to increase access to quality education for out-of-school children and youth in Somalia.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, amend. RFP, at 1,6.  The contract seeks to increase student enrollment in accelerated education program (AEP) sites and improve the safety, literacy, numeracy and socio-emotional skills among those enrolled.  Id. at 6. Award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering price and non-price factors.  Id. at 150-151.  The non-price factors to be considered were:  technical approach; key personnel and staffing plan; institutional experience; and past performance.  Id.  In terms of relative weight, the technical approach factor was deemed the most important factor.  Id.  The key personnel and institutional experience factors were of equal importance, and each factor, individually, was deemed more important than past performance.  Id.  The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. The agency received four proposals in response to the solicitation, including from EDC and CAI.  Contracting Officer’s Statement, (COS) at 2.  The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) performed an initial evaluation of proposals.  AR, Tab 8, TEC Initial Evaluation Memorandum, at 1.[1]  Based on the evaluation of initial proposals, the contracting officer established a competitive range consisting of all four offerors that submitted proposals.  AR, Tab 9, Competitive Range Determination, at 5.  The agency entered into discussions with these firms, sending each offeror a letter, notifying the offerors of the significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and adverse past performance found in their respective proposals.  COS at 6.  Relevant here, EDC’s proposal had been assessed three weaknesses and one deficiency under the technical factors.  AR, Tab 8, TEC Initial Evaluation Memorandum, at 31-40.  Consistent with the agency’s understanding of its obligations under section 15.306(d)(3) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the agency’s discussion letter to EDC only notified the firm of the assessed deficiency related to EDC’s failure to provide the required three references as part of the curriculum vitae (CV) for its proposed “chief of party,” a key personnel position.  AR, Tab 10, Notice of Inclusion in the Competitive Range, at 1.  All four offerors submitted final revised proposals (FRPs).  The TEC reconvened and evaluated FPRs.  AR, Tab 22, TEC FPR Evaluation Memorandum, at 1.  EDC’s ratings remained unchanged, except for its rating under the key personnel and staffing factor, which was upgraded from a marginal rating to a satisfactory rating based on EDC’s inclusion of recent references in its chief of party’s CV.  Id.