Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.

B-415080.7,B-415080.8 May 14, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc. (MIT), of New York, New York, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to MVM, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. HSCEMS-17-Q-00010 to provide monitoring, translation and transcription services. MIT challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation and source selection process. 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:  Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc. File:  B-415080.7; B-415080.8 Date:  May 14, 2019 Holly A. Roth, Esq., Lawrence P. Block, Esq., and Elizabeth G. Leavy, Esq., Reed Smith LLP, for the protester. Isaias Alba, IV, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Meghan F. Leemon, Esq., and Anthony M. Batt, Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for MVM, Inc., the intervenor. Douglas J. Becker, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly evaluated protester’s and awardee’s quotations under the solicitation’s evaluation factors for technical approach, management approach, past performance and price, and reasonably determined that awardee’s proposal complied with the solicitation’s page limitation and font size requirements. DECISION Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc. (MIT), of New York, New York, protests the issuance of a task order by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to MVM, Inc., of Ashburn, Virginia, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. HSCEMS-17-Q-00010 to provide monitoring, translation and transcription services.  MIT challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation and source selection process.  We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In May 2017, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued RFQ No. HSCEMS-17-Q-00010 to vendors holding General Services Administration (GSA) federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts with special item numbers for language services.  More specifically, the solicitation sought language services, including translation and transcription, to support the agency’s Title III program.[1]  The solicitation contemplates award to a single vendor, who will be responsible for providing a broad spectrum of Title III support services nationwide[2] during a 6-month base period[3] and four 1-year option periods.  The task order will be primarily a labor‑hour contract, and vendors were required to submit fixed-price labor rates for specified language professionals from their respective FSS contracts.[4]  The solicitation provided that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis and that the source selection decision would reflect the agency’s consideration of the following evaluation factors:  technical approach,[5] management approach,[6] past performance/experience,[7] and price.[8]  The solicitation also provided that the non-price evaluation factors, combined, were significantly more important than price, but noted that, “[a]s the technical evaluations become more equal, price becomes more important in making the award determination” and further stated that “[i]n the event two or more quotes are determined to have received the same technical rating, award may be made to the lower priced [v]endor.”  RFQ at 28.  Initial quotations were submitted by six vendors in June 2017 and, following an evaluation of those quotations, the agency selected MVM for award.  Thereafter, protests were filed by several unsuccessful offerors, including MIT.  In response to the protests, the agency determined that none of the offerors’ FSS contracts reflected all of the solicited services; accordingly, the agency took corrective action by issuing various RFQ amendments and resoliciting its requirements.  Revised quotations were subsequently requested, and four vendors, including MVM and MIT, submitted quotations.  Thereafter, the agency evaluated MVM’s and MIT’s quotations,[9] assigning both vendors the highest adjectival ratings under each of the non-price evaluation factors,[10] as summarized below.  Technical Approach Management Approach Past Performance/ Experience Total Evaluated Price MIT Excellent Excellent Substantial Confidence $212,957,791 MVM Excellent Excellent Substantial Confidence $205,803,583 AR, Tab 8, Final Award Decision Memorandum (ADM) at 31.  In June 2018, the agency again selected MVM for award; thereafter, MIT protested and the agency determined that it had inadvertently made awar...