Urban Alliance Foundation, et al. P-0886, P-0887, P-0890 P-0891, P-0892
present protest thus theBoard finds it unnecessary to addressthe responsibility of the awardee at thistime.However the irregularities of the evaluation process are sufficiently materialso as to warranttermination of the current contracteffective no later than the closeofthe current school year in June2012.To the extent that theseservices are required by the District for thesummerschoolsession of 2012and beyond, the District shall issue a request to the twenty-three offerors for revised technical and cost proposals for the remainder of the base year and theoption years. The District shallevaluate the revised proposalsin accordance with the law and the terms of the RFP.These consolidated protests aresustained.
On April 1, 2011, OCP issued a Request for Proposals for Solicitation No. DCCF-2011-R-3963-SDA 2 (“RFP”) for a contractor to design and implement a quality, year-round educational program tosupport between 250-500 at-risk youths.
(AR at Ex. 1.) Per the RFP, the District intended to issue acontract consisting of a base year with four additional option years. (AR at Ex 1, §§ F.1-F.2.4.) The RFPwas revised six times prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals on June 8, 2011. (Mot. to Dismiss 3.)The revisions are as follows: (i) on April 14, 2011, the due date was changed from April 22, 2011, to May4, 2011; (AR at Ex. 2) (ii) on April 26, 2011, (Amendment 0001), the due date was extended to May 13,2011; (
) (iii) on May 9, 2011 (Amendment 0002), the due date was extended to May27, 2011; (
) (iv)on May 18, 2011 (Amendment 0003), the RFP was replaced in its entirety and the due date was extendedto May 31, 2011; (
) (v) on May 26, 2011 (Amendment 0004), technical amendments were made tocertain sections of the RFP and the due date was extended to June 6, 2011;(
) and (vi) the due date wasextended for the final time, via E-Sourcing message board, to June 8, 2011, (
Terms of the Solicitation
Under the Revised RFP, the District of Columbia was divided into two Service Delivery Areas(“SDAs”):SDA 1: Wards 1, 2, 3, and 4SDA 2: Wards 5, 6, 7, and 8(AR at Ex. 1, § B.3.1.)The RFP stated: “It is the intent of the District to award at least one contract for each of theSDAs. The District will award additional contracts based upon program needs and availability of funds.”
) Potential offerors were to submit proposals to design and implement a year-round in-school youth program to provide services promoting academic achievement, successful graduation,awareness of and readiness for post-secondary education, career preparation, and connections toemployment. (AR at Ex. 1, § C.1.)The RFPfurther stated that the District would award a contract to the responsible offeror(s)whose offer(s)is most advantageousto the District (AR at Ex. 1, § M.1.1)based upon the followingtechnical evaluation criteria: (1) Price Criterion, 10 points; (2) Technical Approach, 50 points, (3)Technical Expertise, 30 points, (4) Past Performance, 10 points. (AR at Ex. 1, §§ M.3.3.1 –M.3.3.4.)Theevaluation criteria also allowed an additional 10 technical bonus points for in kind/cash match resourcesand 12 points for CBE preference, providing for a maximum 122 total points. (AR at Ex. 1, §§ M.3.4.1,M.3.4.2, M.5.)
This solicitation follows an earlier solicitation issued in September 2010 for the same services. (
, UrbanAllianceProtest 3, Aug. 10, 2011.)
Allprotesters in this matter are challenging only the award for SDA 2.