AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002

AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002 TITLE: AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002 BNUMBER: B-291409; B-291409.2; DATE: December 16, 2002 ********************************************************************** AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc. File: B-291409; B-291409.2; Date: December 16, 2002 John E. Jensen, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester. Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for Worldwide Language Resources, Inc., an intervenor. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to consider that awardee's price proposal is unrealistically low is denied where solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price contract, and did not provide that realism evaluation would be conducted for purposes of evaluating technical understanding. 2. Protest that, in evaluating awardee's technical proposal, agency failed to consider that certain linguists offered by awardee were currently employed by protester and had signed agreements not to work for any other firm, is denied where source selection official was aware of the agreements and determined that they would have no impact on performance. DECISION AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc (ALC) protests the award of a contract to Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. under a solicitation issued by the Department of the Interior to procure linguists to support the Department of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). ALC asserts that the agency misevaluated Worldwide's technical and price proposals. We deny the protest. Interior issued the solicitation, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation S: 8.404, and the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), to vendors holding applicable FSS schedule contracts. The solicitation, for a fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, provided for award based on a *best value* evaluation under three factors--technical approach, past performance and price; the technical approach and past performance factors were significantly more important than price. The technical approach factor was comprised of four equally weighted subfactors: how personnel would obtain security clearances; project manager; qualifications; and management approach. ALC and Worldwide submitted proposals, Air Force personnel evaluated the proposals under the technical and past performance factors, and Interior evaluated the offered prices. The two proposals received identical ratings--*exceeds* for the security clearances and qualifications subfactors, *meets* for the project manager and management approach subfactors, and *meets* for the past performance factor. Worldwide's offered price was [DELETED], and ALC's [DELETED]. Since the two proposals were considered equal with respect to the technical and past performance factors, Interior made award to Worldwide based on price. WORLDWIDE PRICE PROPOSAL ALC protests that, in reaching the award decision, Interior improperly failed to consider that Worldwide's offered price is unrealistically low. This argument is without merit. Where, as here, a solicitation contemplates the award of a fixed-price, rather than a cost-reimbursement, contract, the agency is not required to conduct a price realism analysis, because a fixed‑price contract places the risk and responsibility for loss on the contractor rather than the government. PHP Healthcare Corp.; Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4, 1993, 93-1 CPD P: 366 at 5. An agency may provide for a price realism analysis for the limited purpose of measuring offerors' understanding of the requirements or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror's proposal, but there is no requirement that it do so. Id. Here, the solicitation did not provide that the agency would conduct a price realism analysis, or otherwise assess technical understanding with reference to the offered prices. Consequently, since the agency determined that Worldwide is responsible and, thus, that it can perform at its offered price, Worldwide's low price does not provide a basis for questioning the award. WorldTravelService, B-284155.3, Mar. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 68 at 3.