Marzano Research (91990020R0032)

B-420247 Jan 12, 2022 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights BNP Education Partners LLC d/b/a Marzano Research (Marzano), a small business of Denver, Colorado, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 91990020R0032 issued by the Department of Education for regional education laboratories. Marzano contends that the evaluators ignored or misread information in the firm's proposal, applied unstated evaluation criteria, or otherwise evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation. 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:  BNP Education Partners LLC d/b/a Marzano Research File:  B-420247  Date:  January 12, 2022    Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., Anna R. Wright, Esq., and Anna G. Sullivan, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Paula S. Hughes, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s proposal and exclusion of proposal from the competitive range is denied where the agency’s evaluation was largely reasonable and there is no evidence that the protester was prejudiced by evaluation errors.  Further, the agency’s competitive range determination was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION BNP Education Partners LLC d/b/a Marzano Research (Marzano), a small business of Denver, Colorado, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 91990020R0032 issued by the Department of Education for regional education laboratories.[1]  Marzano contends that the evaluators ignored or misread information in the firm’s proposal, applied unstated evaluation criteria, or otherwise evaluated in a manner inconsistent with the solicitation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On February 2, 2021, using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the solicitation seeking “entities to serve as the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) for nine of the 10 REL regions.”  Agency Report (AR), Tab A, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; Tab C, RFP at 527.[2]  The solicitation explained that the purpose of a REL “is to assist practitioners and policymakers in their work to improve outcomes for learners in [the REL’s] region from early childhood to adulthood by supporting stakeholders in the generation and use of research, evidence, and evidence-based practices.”  RFP at 527, 564.  To achieve this purpose, RELs:  (1) conduct applied research and development; (2) design and implement training, coaching, and technical support activities that emphasize building capacity to use data and information to drive change; and (3) disseminate scientifically valid research, evidence-based practices, and supporting materials that allow stakeholders to apply this knowledge to their own practice. Id. at 564.  The protester is an incumbent REL provider.  Protest at 1; see also AR, Tab E, Technical Evaluation Panel Consensus Memorandum (Tech. Eval.) at 11 (“Marzano has had success in collaborating with other education entities and partners through operating the REL Central [region] contract for two cycles.”). The solicitation contemplated award of nine cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, each with a 1‑year base period and four 1‑year option periods.  RFP at 527, 652.  At the time of the solicitation’s issuance, the agency estimated the combined value of the nine contracts to be approximately $23.4 million.  COS at 3.  The solicitation provided that the agency would make award using a best-value tradeoff methodology after establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions.  RFP at 652, 700.  The solicitation set forth six non-price evaluation factors, which in descending order of importance were:  (1) quality and credibility of the technical approach; (2) quality of the staff and leadership team; (3) quality of the management plan; (4) organizational capacities, experiences, and resources; (5) past performance; and (6) small business participation.  Id.