B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 2007

B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 2007 TITLE: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3 DATE: March 29, 2007 ************************************************************************************** B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 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: L-3 Communications Titan Corporation File: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3 Date: March 29, 2007 W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer, Esq., William M. Hohengarten, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Luke C. Platzer, Esq., and Edward Jackson, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. William L. Walsh, Jr, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Peter A. Riesen, Esq., Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Kristen E. Burgers, Esq., Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., and Anthony James Pagano, Esq., Venable LLP, for Global Linguist Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Capt. Christopher L. Krafchek, Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Evaluation record fails to reasonably support the agency's conclusion that protester's proposal of [deleted] linguists is more likely to create shortfalls against the solicitation's requirements to fill 7,217 linguist positions than awardee's proposal of [deleted] linguists. 2. Where solicitation established specific evaluation benchmarks for evaluation of offerors' experience, and provided for comparative assessments against those benchmarks, an agency may not substitute a previously unidentified "threshold of sufficiency" as an evaluation benchmark against which proposals are evaluated on a pass/fail basis. 3. Evaluation scheme which effectively penalizes one offeror for proposing [deleted] and effectively rewards a competing offeror for proposing [deleted] fails to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirement that evaluation factors must support meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals. DECISION L-3 Communications Titan Corporation (L-3) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Global Linguist Solutions, LLC (GLS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-05-R-0001 to provide interpretation and translation services for the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. L-3 challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under each of the solicitation's evaluation factors, including factors related to fill rate, experience, and transition. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND In June 2006, the Army released the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals to provide linguistic services in Iraq.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, at 120-294.[2] The solicitation provided for award of an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract for a 5-year period, during which individual task orders will be issued; offerors were advised that "[t]he maximum of all orders under the contract is $4.65 Billion." Id. at 123. The solicitation identified the linguist staffing levels, by category,[3] that will be required under the first task order ("task order 1"), and provided that various aspects of the offerors' proposals would be evaluated against the task order 1 requirements.[4] Id. at 247-49, 288. Offerors were advised that award would be based on the proposal offering the best value to the government considering the following evaluation factors: management, past performance, and cost.[5] Id. at 252. With regard to the most important factor, management, the solicitation identified the following subfactors: fill rate, experience, sustainment, staffing plan, transition plan and small business participation.[6] Id. On or before the August 14, 2006 closing date, proposals were submitted by three offerors, including GLS and L-3.[7] The proposals were evaluated by a management evaluation team (MET),[8] a cost evaluation team (CET),[9] and a past performance evaluation team (PPET);[10] thereafter, discussions were conducted during which various "Items for Discussion" (IFDs) were sent to each offeror. The offerors provided written responses to the IFDs and, at the conclusion of the discussion period, each offeror submitted a final proposal revision (FPR).