Strategic Intelligence Group, LLC

B-410881.3 Jun 23, 2015 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Strategic Intelligence Group, LLC (SIG), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to CWU, Inc., of Clearwater, Florida, under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-14-R-CONUS-IC, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), for linguist support services. SIG contends that the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, resulting in a flawed selection decision. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: Strategic Intelligence Group, LLC File: B-410881.3 Date: June 23, 2015 Scott M. McCaleb, Esq., Craig Smith, Esq., and Samantha S. Lee, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Todd R. Overman, Esq., and Bryan R. King, Esq., Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, for CWU, Inc., the intervenor. Maj. Michael G. Pond, and Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Cherie J. Owen, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably concluded that protester’s past performance merited a rating of only satisfactory confidence where the protester experienced continuing performance problems in its performance of its most relevant contract, the incumbent contract. 2. Protest challenging the agency’s technical evaluation is denied where the agency reasonably evaluated proposals consistent with terms of the solicitation. DECISION Strategic Intelligence Group, LLC (SIG), of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to CWU, Inc., of Clearwater, Florida, under request for task order proposals (RFP) No. W911W4‑14‑R‑CONUS‑IC, issued by the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), for linguist support services. SIG contends that the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable, resulting in a flawed selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, open to Defense Language Interpretation and Translation Enterprise (DLITE) contract holders, sought proposals for the issuance of a cost‑plus-fixed-fee task order, with a 1‑year base period and two 1-year options, to provide linguist support to transcribe, translate, and interpret information in connection with the processing of signal intelligence data supporting military and other agency operations in the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), United States European Command (EUCOM), and United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) geographic areas.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP Amend. 5 (hereafter RFP), at 1, 7. The solicitation required the contractor to furnish 422 linguists with the requisite security clearances, including Secret security clearances or Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) security clearances depending on whether the linguist was Category (CAT) II or Category (CAT) III. RFP at 10, 40-41. The solicitation acknowledged that this was a challenging requirement, noting in the Statement of Work (SOW) that: Fulfilling the requirements under this contract has been, and will continue to be, a challenging endeavor as the majority of the linguists will have to be screened and approved by the NSA [National Security Agency] before they will be allowed to work in NSA facilities. Neither INSCOM nor the Army controls the NSA security screening and approval process, and historically the NSA has been slow to approve linguist candidates. Under the terms of this contract, only linguists who are providing services to the Government will be counted towards the requirement; candidates who are pending NSA vetting and approval will not be counted towards the requirement. RFP at 7. In this regard, the SOW required that the contractor pre-vet proposed linguists such that 60% of applicants vetted by the government will pass, and overall maintain “98% of required number and type of . . . personnel.” RFP at 8, 12. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis, considering the following factors (in descending order of importance): (1) technical, including subfactors for technical approach and management approach; (2) past performance; and (3) cost/price. RFP at 129. With regard to past performance, the solicitation specified that the agency would assign a performance confidence assessment based on the relevancy[2] and quality of offerors’ performance on recent efforts.[3] Id. at 131-32. The relevancy assessment would consider how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the solicitation’s requirements here. The performance confidence assessment would consider the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined to be relevant. Id.