WorldWide Language Resources, Inc. (W911W4-18-R-AFR3)

B-418767 Aug 31, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Mission Essential, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the removal of its proposal from the competition under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4-18-R-AFR3, issued by the Department of the Army for linguist services. Mission Essential argues that, for various reasons, it was improper for the Army to reject its proposal based on a clerical error. 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:  Mission Essential, LLC File:  B-418767 Date:  August 31, 2020 Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Michael E. Samuels, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, for the protester. Major Abraham L. Young, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen M. Hernandez, Harry M. Parent, Esq., and Andrew J. Smith, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency acted unreasonably by not addressing the mistake in protester’s cost/price proposal through a cost realism “most probable cost” adjustment is denied where agency reasonably determined, as preliminary matter, the proposal as submitted was noncompliant and not subject to a substantive evaluation review. 2.  Protest that agency abused its discretion by not engaging in clarifications before rejecting the protester’s noncompliant proposal is denied where the agency was under no obligation to engage in clarifications regarding an aspect of the proposal that concerned its eligibility for award. 3.  Protest that agency failed to reasonably determine that rejection of protester’s noncompliant task order proposal was “in the government’s interest,” as required by the solicitation, is denied where the record reflects the reasonable exercise of agency’s discretion. DECISION   Mission Essential, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, protests the removal of its proposal from the competition under request for task order proposals (RTOP) No. W911W4-18-R-AFR3, issued by the Department of the Army for linguist services.  Mission Essential argues that, for various reasons, it was improper for the Army to reject its proposal based on a clerical error. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The Army issued the RTOP on January 23, 2020, under the Defense Language Interpretation and Translation Enterprise II (DLITE II) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 4, RTOP amend. 1 at 1-2, 151; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS), June 24, 2020, at 2.  The solicitation contemplated the award, without discussions, of a cost-plus-fixed-fee task order for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options.[2]  AR, Tab 4, RTOP amend. 1 at 3, 151.  In general terms, the RTOP required the contractor to furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, and supervision necessary to provide foreign language services in support of United States Africa Command operations.  RTOP amend. 1, Performance Work Statement at 32. The RTOP contained a government furnished pricing model (GFPM) which specified the linguist labor categories (53), number of full-time equivalent positions (159), and number of man-hours (827,539 annually) that offerors were to propose.  AR, Tab 4b, RTOP amend. 1, GFPM (Base Period).  The GFPM also included minimum direct labor rates--referred to as “floor rates”--for each linguist labor category.  Id.  The GFPM instructed offerors to provide a total taxable compensation rate that “shall not be less than the Government[-]provided ‘Floor’ Rate.”  Id. at GFPM (Instructions).  Further, the RTOP stated that “[a]ny Offeror proposed rates below the Government ‘Floor Rates’ will be ineligible for award as those proposals below the threshold or floor shall be deemed unrealistic.”  RTOP amend. 1 at 140. The solicitation provided for a proposal compliance review.  Id. at 151.  Specifically, “[a]fter receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in Section M.4, Rejection of Offerors.”  Id.  Further, the RTOP explicitly notified offerors, as part of the compliance review, that the agency “may reject any Offeror’s proposal[] with proposed labor rates below the Government established ‘Floor Rates’.”  Id. at 153. Task order award was to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, based on two evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  technical and cost/price.  Id.