Global Language Center

B-413503.8 Jun 01, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Language Translation, Inc., doing business as Global Language Center (Global), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Salient CRGT, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, by the Department of State (DOS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ16R0001, for foreign language instruction, testing services, and curriculum development. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  Global Language Center File:  B-413503.8 Date:  June 1, 2017 Devon E. Hewitt, Esq., and  Michael E. Stamp, Esq., Protorae Law PLLC, for the protester. Lawrence P. Block, Esq., and Elizabeth G. Leavy, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for Salient CRGT, Inc., the intervenor. Tudo N. Pham, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Charmaine A. Stevenson, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly engaged in post-final proposal revision (post-FPR) discussions only with awardee when it allowed the awardee to submit pricing for travel is sustained where record shows that post-FPR exchange resulted in material changes to awardee’s proposal. 2.  Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of past performance is sustained where the agency failed to adequately document its evaluation and where the agency credited the awardee for positive performance without considering the relevance of the performance, while failing to credit the protester for relevant performance under its incumbent contract. 3.  Protest that agency failed to perform price realism analysis is denied where the record reflects that the agency evaluated prices in accordance with the solicitation. DECISION Global Language Translation, Inc., doing business as Global Language Center (Global), of Arlington, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Salient CRGT, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, by the Department of State (DOS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SFSIAQ16R0001, for foreign language instruction, testing services, and curriculum development. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued April 22, 2016, provided for the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts, consisting of a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, for language instruction, curriculum development, and testing support services for over 70 foreign languages taught at the School of Language Studies (SLS) at DOS’s Foreign Service Institute (FSI).[1]  FSI requires companies to supply approximately 350-400 personnel performing in a variety of work schedules to support student enrollment that annually surpasses 2,000 students, including up to 1,000 distance learning students at FSI’s two campuses in Arlington, Virginia.  RFP at 34, 58-59.  The statement of work (SOW) provided position descriptions setting forth the general and specific requirements for the following 15 positions:  (1) Language Instructor I; (2) Language Instructor II; (3) Language Instructor III; (4) Distance Learning Mentor; (5) Language Tester I; (6) Language Tester II; (7) Language Examiner I; (8) Language Examiner II; (9) Curriculum Developer I; (10) Curriculum Developer II; (11) Materials Editor; (12) Evaluation Specialist I; (13) Evaluation Specialist II; (14) Evaluation Specialist III; and (15) Onsite Program Manager.  Id. at 36-52.  The RFP further provided that at the beginning of contract performance, incumbent personnel were to be granted a right of first refusal for positions for which they may qualify.  Id. at 55. The RFP provided that offers would be evaluated for quality, past performance, and price, and that when combined, technical (quality) and past performance were more important than price.  RFP at 106.  The quality factor consisted of five subfactors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) understanding and approach; (2) personnel qualifications; (3) compensation plan; (4) small business subcontracting plan; and (5) subcontract management plan.[2]  Id.