W R Systems, Ltd., B-287477; B-287477.3, June 29, 2001

W R Systems, Ltd., B-287477; B-287477.3, June 29, 2001 TITLE: W R Systems, Ltd., B-287477; B-287477.3, June 29, 2001 BNUMBER: B-287477; B-287477.3 DATE: June 29, 2001 ********************************************************************** W R Systems, Ltd., B-287477; B-287477.3, June 29, 2001 Decision Matter of: W R Systems, Ltd. File: B-287477; B-287477.3 Date: June 29, 2001 John A. Howell, Esq., and Anne K. Shukis, Esq., Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, for the protester. J. Michael Sawyers, Esq., Drug Enforcement Administration, for the agency. Aldo A. Benejam, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Contention that contracting officer's (CO) decision to reject initial evaluations and convene a new technical evaluation panel was designed to ensure that the protester was improperly eliminated from consideration is denied, where there is no evidence in the record that the CO's decisions were not made in good faith or that they were designed with the intent of changing technical rankings or avoiding an award to the protester. 2. Allegation that protester was prejudiced because in preparing its proposal it assumed that offerors were prohibited from proposing certain individuals as core personnel on the basis of their work history is denied where the solicitation did not impose any restrictions, limits, or prohibitions on the individuals that could be proposed to fill the required core positions due to their prior work. 3. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. DECISION W R Systems, Ltd. (WRS) protests the award of a contract to Comprehensive Technologies, Inc. (CTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-00-R-0013, issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for monitoring, translation, transcription, linguistic data analysis, and technical support services. WRS challenges the award on several grounds, including that DEA: (1) unreasonably decided to reject the initial evaluations and convene an entirely new evaluation panel; (2) failed to downgrade CTI's proposal for proposing personnel it could not deliver or who were ineligible to work on the contemplated contract; and (3) improperly evaluated CTI's past performance. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DEA's primary mission is to enforce narcotics laws and bring to justice organizations and individuals involved in growing, manufacturing, or distributing controlled substances destined for the illegal drug traffic in the United States and its territories. DEA's mission requires that DEA target and aggressively seek to prosecute persons and organizations involved in criminal activities. One key tool DEA uses in its mission is judicially authorized communication intercepts, which present some obstacles for DEA. For example, in some cases, the intended surveillance targets often communicate in different foreign languages and dialects. To address its operational needs, DEA must have at its disposal personnel with the ability to understand and reliably, quickly, and accurately translate and transcribe all of the detected communications. The procurement at issue here is to obtain personnel capable of monitoring, transcribing, translating, reviewing, and analyzing investigative documents involving both domestic and foreign communications in various foreign languages. The RFP, issued on April 14, 2000, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with up to four 1-year option periods. Offerors were required to submit proposals in separate volumes--a technical proposal and a business management proposal. For each contract period, offerors were required to submit unit and extended hourly labor rates for estimated quantities of 12 different labor categories, described in the RFP as either "core" or "non-core" personnel. RFP amend. 4, sect. B; amend. 3 para.para. C.9.2, C.9.2.1, at 35. The RFP listed the following evaluation factors (maximum possible number of points for each factor shown in parentheses): furnishing qualified personnel (35), quality control plan (25), management plan (10), subcontracting plan (10), and past performance/risk assessment (20), for a maximum possible total of 100 points. Although price was not to be numerically scored, the RFP explained that its degree of importance would increase as proposals were considered equal in relation to technical factors. The RFP stated that technical factors combined were substantially more important than price. Award was to be made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the best value to the government. Nine firms responded to the RFP by the time set on June 21 for receipt of proposals.