Access Interpreting, Inc.

B-413990 Jan 17, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Access Interpreting, Inc. (Access), of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Vital Signs LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS5916R00005 issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for sign language interpreter services. Access challenges the agency's evaluation of the awardee's proposal and the best-value determination. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest 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:  Access Interpreting, Inc. File:  B-413990 Date:  January 17, 2017 Daniel S. Koch, Esq., and Michael E. Samuels, Esq.,Miles & Stockbridge PC, for the protester. Laura Wainwright, Esq., Department of Transportation, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of an awardee’s proposal and the agency’s best-value selection decision are denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Access Interpreting, Inc. (Access), of Washington, D.C., protests the award of a contract to Vital Signs LLC, of Silver Spring, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DTOS5916R00005 issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for sign language interpreter services.  Access challenges the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s proposal and the best-value determination. We dismiss the protest in part and deny the protest in part. BACKGROUND On May 23, 2016, DOT issued the RFP, which contemplated the award of a labor-hours, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract for a base year and four one-year option periods, using the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items.  RFP at 1.  The RFP contemplated award on a best-value basis, using a tradeoff between price and non-price factors.  Id. at 29.  In an amendment to the RFP, the agency advised that although the RFP was issued as a total small business set-aside, businesses of any size were invited to submit a proposal.[1]  RFP, Amend. 1 at 1.  The RFP stated that offerors’ proposals would be evaluated based on five evaluation factors:  (1) technical approach; (2) personnel/staffing; (3) past performance; (4) management approach; and (5) price.  RFP at 28-29.  The RFP advised that all non-price factors were of equal importance, and were more important than price.  Id. at 28. As relevant to past performance, the RFP required an offeror to identify at least three companies and/or government agencies with which it had conducted a significant amount of business[2] within the last three years.  Id. at 29.  Offerors were required to use past performance questionnaires to submit reference information.  Id.  An offeror would be evaluated on its knowledge and experience along with its capability and capacity to effectively deliver high-quality and timely service solutions.  Id. As relevant here, the management approach required offerors to demonstrate, among other things, an offeror’s ability to manage the size and scope of all the requirements set forth in the RFP.  Id. at 30.  Proposals would be evaluated on how well the offeror’s overall program management approach would meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation, including, for example, its business relations, personnel management, and subcontractor utilization.  Id. On July 27, the agency received 16 proposals.  The technical evaluation panel (TEP) evaluated proposals and assigned consensus adjectival ratings and a point score to the non-price factors.[3]  AR, Tab 8, Source Selection Decision (SSD), at 5.  The TEP assigned both Access’s and Vital Signs’s proposals all 100 of the available points and adjectival ratings of excellent for the non-price factors.[4]  Id. at 6, 7.  As relevant here, the contracting officer (CO), acting as the source selection authority (SSA), noted in the SSD that although the RFP stated that the four non-price evaluation factors would be considered equal in importance, “during the evaluation process, each evaluation factor [was] not equal in importance and carried varying weights.”  Id. at 4.  The record shows that the non-price factors were assigned the following point scores:  technical approach and personnel/staffing were each assigned 30 of the available 100 points; past performance was assigned 5 of the available 100 points; and management approach was assigned 35 of the available 100 points.  Id.