B-299310.2, Chenega Federal Systems, LLC, September 28, 2007

B-299310.2 Sep 28, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Chenega Federal Systems, LLC protests the award of a contract to Calnet, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-05-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army for translation and interpretation services in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). Chenega asserts that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and failed to identify an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) on the part of Calnet. We deny the protest. View Decision B-299310.2, Chenega Federal Systems, LLC, September 28, 2007 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: Chenega Federal Systems, LLC File: B-299310.2 Date: September 28, 2007 William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for the protester. Maj. Geraldine Chanel, Department of the Army, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency conducted misleading cost discussions is denied where record shows that agency provided protester with detailed information during discussions relating to evaluation of its cost proposal, and protester's response to that information shows that it independently analyzed the information and formed its own business judgments regarding how to respond to the agency's information. 2. Protest that awardee had an impermissible organizational conflict of interest (OCI) is denied where protester previously raised the same assertion, agency conducted a detailed investigation and concluded that no OCI existed, and protester offers no evidence in support of its position; protester's mere suspicion of an OCI in light of agency's detailed investigation, without more, is inadequate to establish that OCI exists. DECISION Chenega Federal Systems, LLC protests the award of a contract to Calnet, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-05-R-0012, issued by the Department of the Army for translation and interpretation services in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO). Chenega asserts that the agency engaged in misleading discussions and failed to identify an organizational conflict of interest (OCI) on the part of Calnet.[1] We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost'plus-award-fee contract for a base period of 3 months, with 19 3-month option periods (for a total performance period of 5 years) to provide, on an as-needed basis, translation and interpretation services at GTMO. Offerors were advised that the agency intended to make award to the firm submitting the proposal deemed to offer the –best value— to the government, considering three factors: management, past performance (deemed less important than management), and cost (deemed less important than past performance). RFP at 122-23. For cost evaluation purposes, the RFP advised that the agency would evaluate the proposals for reasonableness and perform a cost realism evaluation to determine the most probable cost for performance of a task order included in the RFP. RFP at 121. The agency received four proposals, and included all in the competitive range. Thereafter, the agency engaged in discussions with the offerors and solicited and obtained final proposal revisions (FPR). The agency evaluated the FPRs and assigned the following ratings: Management Past Performance Evaluated Cost Calnet Inc. Adequate/Moderate Risk-Good/Low Risk Excellent/Very Low Risk $49.4 million Chenega Federal Systems Good/Low Risk Excellent/Very Low Risk $62.1 million Offeror A Adequate/Moderate Risk Excellent/Very Low Risk $73.1 million Offeror B Good/Low Risk-Excellent/Very Low Risk Excellent/Very Low Risk $68.0 million AR, exh. 57, at 4. The agency advised Chenega by letter dated December 15, 2006, that Calnet had been selected for award. AR, exh. 52. After receiving a debriefing, Chenega filed a protest in our Office alleging, among other things, that Calnet had an impermissible OCI. By letter dated January 23, 2007, the agency advised our Office that it intended to set aside the award to Calnet, investigate Chenega's OCI allegation, and make a new source selection decision. AR, exh. 55. Based on this proposed action, we dismissed Chenega's protest as academic (B-299310, Jan. 31, 2007). After reviewing the matter, the agency executed a revised source selection decision, finding that there were no impermissible OCIs and affirming its earlier decision to make award to Calnet. AR, exh. 57. After being advised of the agency's decision, Chenega filed this protest. Chenega maintains that the agency engaged in misleading discussions.