Centra Technology, Inc.

B-274744 Dec 26, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that evaluation failed to take into account experience of protester's proposed subcontractor is denied where record shows this experience was considered. Was rated as only "fair. Protester's proposed travel costs properly were adjusted upward based on the costs under the incumbent contract. The incumbent contract was based on the same performance approach as protester proposed. CTI challenges the evaluation of its proposal and argues that the award was improper due to an improper conflict of interest. Proposals were to receive both a numerical and an adjectival (excellent. Which then was subject to adjustment based on a cost realism analysis. Proposed costs were to be evaluated to establish probable cost. View Decision Matter of: Centra Technology, Inc. File: B-274744 Date: December 26, 1996 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Centra Technology, Inc. (CTI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Defense Group, Inc. (DGI), protests the award of a contract to TechTrans International, Inc. (TTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. 9-BP2-H50-6-01P, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for Russian language and logistics services for the Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. CTI challenges the evaluation of its proposal and argues that the award was improper due to an improper conflict of interest. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract on a best value basis for translation, interpretation, language training, and logistics services at various sites in the United States and Russia. The solicitation set forth the following three equally weighted factors: (1) mission suitability; (2) cost; and (3) relevant experience and past performance. Under the mission suitability factor, proposals were to receive both a numerical and an adjectival (excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor) rating, which then was subject to adjustment based on a cost realism analysis. In this regard, proposed costs were to be evaluated to establish probable cost, which would not be scored. Six proposals were received. CTI's and TTI's proposals (the only ones relevant here) were scored as follows: FACTOR CTI TTI Mission Suitability (1,000 available points) 453/fair 636 [1] /good Relevant Experience/ Past Performance fair excellent Probable Cost $42,456,000 $41,602,000 The source selection official (SSO) determined that TTI's proposal was the best value to the government based on its highest technical ratings and lowest probable cost and thus made award to TTI without discussions. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE CTI asserts that the agency admitted during the debriefing following the award that it had not considered any of the relevant experience of its proposed subcontractor, Universal Technical Translation, Inc. (UTT), which allegedly had 18 years of Russian language translation and interpretation experience on multi-million dollar contracts (including subcontract experience on TTI's incumbent contract). Since this allegedly is more experience than TTI has, CTI maintains that its proposal's rating of fair in this area was erroneous in light of TTI's excellent rating. In reviewing an evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable. Comarco, Inc., B-249697.2, Jan. 26, 1993, 93-1 CPD Para. 65. Notwithstanding the agency's alleged statements at the debriefing, the record shows that the SSEB did in fact consider UTT's experience (as well as that of EAI Corporation, another proposed subcontractor and CTI's parent company, DGI [2]). It rated CTI's proposal as only fair for two principal reasons: most of the personnel involved in DGI's and EAI's prior contracts were scientists who primarily performed research and development tasks on aeronautics rather than Russian language interpretation and translation services, as required here; and, although the SSEB determined that UTT had significant translation experience, it also found that the firm had limited interpretation and training experience, and no logistics experience, two elements of the work under the RFP. In contrast, the SSEB determined that, while TTI's experience was limited to its incumbent NASA contract, that experience extended into all areas of the RFP, and TTI's performance was superior.