SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287477.2, May 16, 2001

B-287477.2 May 16, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency was not required to conduct discussions with protester aimed at lowering its proposed price below the awardee's. Even though award was ultimately based on lowest price. Where agency determined that protester's price was reasonable and comparable to other offerors' prices. 2. Allegation that evaluation of proposals was flawed is denied where. There is virtually no possibility that the protester was prejudiced in the evaluation. Offerors were required to submit proposals in separate volumes . Offerors were required to submit unit and extended hourly labor rates for estimated quantities of 12 different labor categories. 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. View Decision Matter of: SOS Interpreting, Ltd. File: B-287477.2 Date: May 16, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SOS Interpreting, Ltd. (SOS) 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 translation and technical support services. SOS argues that the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions with the firm regarding its proposed price, and maintains that the agency improperly applied unequally weighted evaluation subfactors. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on April 14, 2000, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with up to four 1-year option periods. RFP Secs. B.2, B.8, L.4. Offerors were required to submit proposals in separate volumes -- a technical proposal and a business management proposal. Id. Sec. L-6.1(3). For each contract period, offerors were required to submit unit and extended hourly labor rates for estimated quantities of 12 different labor categories. Id. amend. No. 4, Sec. B. The RFP listed the following technical 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. Id. Sec. M.5. 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. Id. Sec. M.4.B, at M-3. The RFP stated that technical factors combined were substantially more important than price. Id. Sec, M.2.B. Award was to made on the basis of the proposal deemed to represent the best value to the government. Id. Sec. M.2.A. Nine firms, including SOS and CTI, responded to the RFP by the time set on June 21, for receipt of proposals. On July 10, the agency convened a technical evaluation panel (TEP) to evaluate technical proposals. Prices were separately evaluated. The contracting officer (CO) determined that the TEP's initial evaluation was inadequate, set aside these evaluations, and convened a different panel to evaluate proposals. CO Statement, Apr. 26, 2001, at 4. Based on the results of these evaluations, the CO excluded three proposals from further consideration, established a competitive range comprised of the remaining six proposals, conducted discussions with these six firms, and requested and received final proposal revisions (FPR). The TEP reevaluated proposals based on FPRs. The following table shows the results of the final evaluations. Offeror Pers. Qual. Mgmt. Sub. Past Total Price cont. Plan Plan Perf. Score CTI 33 24 7 9 18 91 $26,872,408 A 33 24 8 8 16 89 28,616,442 B 33 22 9 8 20 92 29,399,225 C 33 23 9 9 19 93 30,154,638 D 33 23 9 9 16 90 30,635,358 SOS 32 22 9 9 15 87 31,442,927 Agency Report (AR), exh. 5, Final Technical Evaluation Report, Jan. 31, 2001; exh. 8 Price Analysis. Based on the results of the final technical and price evaluation, the CO awarded the contract to CTI. This protest followed a debriefing. SOS argues the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions because, except for raising questions regarding the prices of SOS's proposed subcontractors, DEA never advised SOS that its price was too high. SOS argues that it was prejudiced by the agency's allegedly flawed discussions because, since the CO selected CTI primarily on the basis of that firm's lower price, DEA should have informed SOS during discussions that its total price was higher than CTI's. This argument is without merit. Under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec.