HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptahly0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
oComptroller General
of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20548
Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a I
GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been
approved for public release.
Matter of: McAllister & Associates, Inc.
File: B-277029.3
Date: February 18, 1998
Paulette Cross-Castle, Esq., for the protester.
Jeffrey C. Morhardt, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range was reasonable where
agency reasonably concluded that proposal contained informational deficiencies so
pervasive that it did not demonstrate protester's understanding of solicitation
requirements and thus had no reasonable chance of being selected for award.
DECISION
McAllister & Associates, Inc. protests the Department of Education's (DOE)
elimination of its proposal from the competitive range, and the award of multiple
contracts to other offerors, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 96-011, for debt
collection services.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of one or more contracts for collection and
administrative resolution activities on debts resulting from nonpayment of student
loans. Award was to be based on a best value evaluation, with technical merit and
past performance combined significantly more important than cost or price. Under
the technical factor, the RFP included the following subfactors (with possible
ratings out of 450 available points): (1) executive summary (25 points); (2) strategic
collections approach (75 points); (3) administrative resolutions (30 points); (4)
litigation/administrative wage garnishment (AWG) preparation (45 points); (5)
quality control (QC) plan (75 points); (6) training plan (40 points); (7) computer
system resources (60 points); and (8) project personnel experience (100 points).
Under the price factor, the RFP requested commissions/fees for certain work
categories and provided target maximum rates above which a proposal could be
considered unacceptable for award. The RFP specifically provided that [a] detailed
work plan must be submitted indicating how each aspect of the [SOW] is to be](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptahly0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)