SOS Interpreting, LTD., B-293026; B-293026.2; B-293026.3, January 20, 2004

SOS Interpreting, LTD., B-293026; B-293026.2; B-293026.3, January 20, 2004 TITLE: SOS Interpreting, LTD., B-293026; B-293026.2; B-293026.3, January 20, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293026; B-293026.2; B-293026.3 DATE: January 20, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: SOS Interpreting, LTD. File: B-293026; B-293026.2; B-293026.3 Date: January 20, 2004 Alison L. Doyle, Esq., and Dana B. Pashkoff, Esq., McKenna Long & Aldridge, for the protester. Robert M. Moore, Esq., and Kristen A. Bennett, Esq., Moore & Lee, for McNeil Technologies, Inc., an intervenor. Sandra M. DeBalzo, Esq., and J. Michael Sawyers, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Source selection decision selecting lower-priced proposal as the best-value under a solicitation containing an evaluation scheme that attached greater weight to technical merit was not reasonably based, where the lower-level evaluators found and documented that the protester's higher-priced proposal was technically superior, and the source selection authority determined the proposals were technically equal and made award based on the low-priced proposal, without considering the areas where the protester's proposal was found technically superior. 2. Agency should not consider protester's earlier agency-level protest in evaluating its proposal in the absence of some evidence of abuse of the bid protest process by the protester. 3. Under procurement for translation services covered by the Service Contract Act (SCA) that required proposals to include realistic prices for option years that allowed for any increases that may affect price, agency did not evaluate proposal prices on an equal basis to account for the real costs to the government, where the awardee's proposed prices for Spanish linguists did not escalate for the option years and its proposal evidenced the intention of obtaining contract price increases if SCA wage determinations increased the awardee's salary or benefit obligations for Spanish linguists, and the other offerors' proposals (and even the awardee's proposal for positions other than Spanish linguists) included escalating prices for the option years that apparently accounted for possible SCA increases. DECISION SOS Interpreting, LTD. protests the award of a contract to McNeil Technologies, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DEA-02-R-0001, issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice, for translation, transcription, interpreting, interception, and monitoring support services. We sustain the protests. The RFP, issued May 24, 2002, was to acquire a variety of language services with related clerical and information technology services to support DEA's New England Field Division under a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods. The services were to assist the DEA with court-ordered (Title III) wiretaps in connection with ongoing criminal investigations, with consensual listening devices and other media, and with transcription of recorded material and translation of written documents. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis considering technical evaluation factors, past performance, and cost/price. The technical evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance, were: management plan, quality control plan, and transition plan. Under the management plan factor, three subfactors--furnishing qualified personnel, recruiting and retention, and security plan--were identified; however, the relative weight of these subfactors was not disclosed. RFP S M.2.1. The RFP stated that the combined weight of the technical evaluation factors was more important than cost/price. RFP S M.2.2. The relative weight of the past performance factor was not disclosed in the RFP, although the RFP stated "the Offeror's technical capability [which includes past performance] is substantially more important than cost."[1] RFP SA M.4.3. The RFP also noted, "[a]ward will not necessarily be made to the proposal with the lowest price or highest technical score." RFP S M.2.3. To evaluate past performance, the RFP stated that the agency would conduct "a performance risk assessment based on the offeror's present and past performance as related to the probability of successfully accomplishing the proposed effort." RFP S M.3. Prices were solicited for various labor categories, in particular, linguists in various languages, for the base and option years, and were to be evaluated for realism and reasonableness.[2] Six offerors, including McNeil and SOS, submitted proposals in response to the RFP.