WorldWide Language Resources, Inc.

B-412495.2 Mar 23, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights WorldWide Language Resources, Inc., of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-15-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army, Intelligence and Security Command, for interpretation and language services. 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:  WorldWide Language Resources, Inc. File:  B-412495.2 Date:  March 23, 2016 James S. DelSordo, Esq., James S. Phillips, Esq., and Julie M. Nichols, Esq., Argus Legal, PLLC, for the protester. Capt. Matthew A. Freeman, and  Scott N. Flesch, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and Cherie J. Owen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that requirement for relevant past performance is vague because solicitation does not specifically define complexity and magnitude is denied where solicitation provides details regarding performance that will be required. 2.  Protest that agency should be required to provide locations where linguists in Afghanistan have been located in the past is denied where information is not required in order for offerors to propose a plan to distribute management personnel. 3.  Protest that solicitation’s evaluation scheme improperly fails to consider cost of Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance in total evaluated price is denied where agency reasonably believed that excluding the cost of DBA will promote competition. DECISION WorldWide Language Resources, Inc., of Fayetteville, North Carolina, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-15-R-0021, issued by the Department of the Army, Intelligence and Security Command, for interpretation and language services.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP anticipates the award of multiple Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Translation Enterprise II (DLITE II) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for linguist support services supporting military operations and exercises throughout the world.  The RFP anticipates the award of contracts for two separate mission areas:  force projection operations, and train and sustain operations for a five-year base period and one five-year option period.[1]  RFP at 3.  The agency estimates that the total value of the DLITE II procurement is approximately $9.8 billion.  Contracting Officer’s Statement at 1.  The solicitation provided that contracts will be awarded on a best-value basis, considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical (with subfactors for technical approach, staffing plan, transition plan); small business participation; past performance; and price.  RFP at 425-26.  Worldwide asserts that solicitation provisions relating to staffing plan, past performance, and price are ambiguous and unduly restrictive of competition. PAST PERFORMANCE With respect to past performance, the solicitation instructed offerors to provide up to three references for relevant contracts that were performed within the past three years.  RFP at 414.  Relevant was defined as those contracts of a comparable magnitude and complexity to the tasks described in sections C.1 and C.3 of the performance work statement (PWS), and section J.2.1, Sample Task Order (STO) Alpha.  Id.  Offerors were instructed to explain how and why the referenced projects were relevant to the proposed effort.  Id. WorldWide asserts that the solicitation is ambiguous as to what constitutes comparable magnitude and complexity for purposes of relevancy.  Specifically, according to WorldWide, the agency should be required to specify a dollar value or provide a detailed explanation of what magnitude and complexity means in the context of this procurement. [2]  Protest at 5. Solicitations must be drafted to enable offerors to intelligently prepare their proposals and must be sufficiently free from ambiguity so that offerors may compete on a common basis.  Raymond Express Int’l, B-409872.2, Nov.