SOS Interpreting, Ltd., B-287505, June 12, 2001

B-287505 Jun 12, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range for translation, transcription, and related support services, contending that DEA (1) unreasonably rejected the initial evaluations of proposals and reconvened a new evaluation panel and (2) did not have a valid basis to reject its proposal, since DEA improperly evaluated its bid. GAO held that (1) there was no evidence in the record that DEA's decisions were not made in good faith and (2) DEA's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in the solicitation. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: SOS Interpreting, Ltd. File: B-287505 Date: June 12, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION SOS Interpreting, Ltd. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-00-R-0020, issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for translation, transcription, and related support services for DEA's Chicago Field Division. SOS argues that the contracting officer (CO) unreasonably rejected the initial evaluations of proposals and reconvened a new evaluation panel. The protester also contends that DEA improperly evaluated its proposal and, thus, had no valid basis for eliminating SOS's proposal from the competition. SOS also argues that the agency improperly failed to consider the impact that discussions could have had on SOS's technical score. /1/ We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on May 16, 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 hourly and extended labor rates for estimated minimum/maximum quantities of different labor categories, a total price for each contract period, and a grand total price. The RFP listed the following three technical evaluation factors (maximum possible number of points for each factor shown in parentheses): technical approach (45), qualified personnel/required services (30), and past performance/risk assessment (25), 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. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) rated proposals DEA received from three firms by the time set for receipt of proposals. The CO determined that the results of the initial evaluations were not in line with historic scores these offerors' proposals had earned under prior acquisitions for similar services and rejected the TEP's evaluation. Agency Report (AR), exh. 5, Competitive Range Determination, Mar. 1, 2001, at 2. The CO then convened a new TEP which completed its evaluation on February 23, 2001, with the following final results: Tech. Pers. Perf. Total/Rating Grand Price CTI 44 27 24 95/Acceptable $ 8,572,938 SOS 30 16 18 64/Conditionally 10,701,459 Acceptable A 10 21 19 50/Unacceptable 7,078,644 Id. at 3, 9. Based on these results, the CO excluded SOS's and Offeror A's proposals from further consideration and determined to hold discussions only with CTI. Id. at 9-10. By letter dated March 13, DEA notified SOS that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range, and this protest followed a debriefing by the agency. PROTESTER'S CONTENTIONS The protester contends that the CO's decision to reject the initial evaluations and convene a new TEP was unreasonable. SOS also challenges the CO's decision to exclude its proposal from the competitive range because, according to the protester, the TEP misevaluated its proposal under the technical approach and past performance factors. The protester also argues that given that its proposal was highly rated, the CO's decision to exclude its proposal from further consideration is especially unreasonable here because it resulted in a competitive range of only one proposal. DISCUSSION Initial Evaluation and Reconvened TEP After receipt of initial proposals, DEA convened a TEP comprised of three members, all of whom were special agents from DEA's Chicago Field Division. This TEP completed its evaluation and submitted a report to the CO on August 24, 2000. The results of that evaluation show that CTI's technical proposal earned a total of 73 points and SOS's proposal earned 69 points; both proposals were rated acceptable overall.