Language Service Associates, Inc., B-293041, December 22, 2003

B-293041 Dec 22, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Where technical proposals were scored within a few points of one another in various award scenarios. None was found to possess significant technical advantages over the others. Agency reasonably concluded proposals were technically equivalent and properly based award on low evaluated price. The EOIR is responsible for interpreting and administering the immigration laws and regulations of the United States through the Immigration Courts. The overall requirement was divided into five parts. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors. Technical merit was to be evaluated on the basis of six subfactors. Technical merit was significantly more important than price. A best value determination was to be made for each possible combination (scenario) of services. View Decision Language Service Associates, Inc., B-293041, December 22, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Language Service Associates, Inc. (LSA) protests the award of a contract to Bowne Global Solutions II, Inc. (BGS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. JDOIR-03-0232, issued by the Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) for language interpreter services. LSA challenges the agency's "best value" award determination. We deny the protest. The EOIR is responsible for interpreting and administering the immigration laws and regulations of the United States through the Immigration Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. When an individual appearing before an immigration judge does not speak English, the EOIR must provide an interpreter to ensure due process. The EOIR employs some 103 staff interpreters, but obtains the vast majority of its translation requirements through contract interpreters. The RFP sought proposals to provide qualified, professional, and experienced on-site and telephonic interpreters for any language requested. The overall requirement was divided into five parts--nationwide (NW)(all languages), and four noncontiguous regions (primarily Spanish). The RFP contemplated the award of up to five fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for any combination of the identified requirements for a base period, with 4 option years. Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of two factors--technical merit and price. Technical merit was to be evaluated on the basis of six subfactors, listed in descending order of importance--interpreter recruitment, retention, and evaluation (35 points); quality assurance (20 points); past performance (15 points); management plan (15 points); qualifications/experience (10 points); and small disadvantaged business (SDB) participation (5 points). In deciding which proposal represented the best value, technical merit was significantly more important than price. A best value determination was to be made for each possible combination (scenario) of services--nationwide, the four regions, or any combination thereof. With regard to making these best value decision(s), the RFP provided that the total evaluated price would be the determining factor where all proposals were considered substantially equal in technical merit, but where there were significant differences in technical merit, a more expensive proposal could be selected if the government decided it was worth the price differential. RFP Sec. M.1.2(b). LSA and BGS were among the eight offerors submitting proposals, and (along with two other offerors) both were included in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The agency conducted discussions with the competitive range offerors and obtained revised proposals. The evaluators separately scored the proposals under each subfactor for each award combination proposed and the technical evaluation panel (TEP) then calculated a final, average consensus score for each proposal. The contracting officer then derived a technical score and price for each of the 52 possible award combinations, which in instances involving multiple awards, required the agency to calculate combined technical scores. /1/ The final consensus evaluations for the top 12 technically ranked scenarios, covering the four regions and NW were as follows: Tech Scenarios: Offeror [Territory(ies)] Average Combined Rank Score Price 1 BGS [NW] LSA [All Regions] 92.2 $113,437,244 2 BGS [NW] LSA [Regs. 1,2,4] Off. 3 90.4 [deleted] . [Reg. 3] 3 BGS [NW + Reg. 4] LSA [Regs. 1,2,3] 90.4 [deleted] 4 BGS [NW + Regs. 1,4] LSA [Regs. 2, 3] 90.1 [deleted] 5 LSA [NW + Regs. 1,2,4] Off. 3 [Reg. 3] 89.9 [deleted] 6 LSA [NW + All Regions] 89.5 $107,825,896 7 BGS [NW + Regs. 1,2,4] LSA [Reg. 3] 89.5 [deleted] 8 BGS [NW + Reg. 4] LSA [Regs.1,2] 89.4 [deleted] . Off. 3 [Reg. 3] 9 BGS [NW + Regs. 1,4] LSA [Reg. 2] . Off. 3 [Reg. 3] 89.3 [deleted] 10 BGS [NW] LSA [Regs.1,2] Off. 3 87.5 [deleted] . [Reg. 3] Off. 4 [Reg.