International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (W91247-19-R-0017)

B-418916.2 Sep 09, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (ICLS), of Washington, D.C., requests reconsideration of our decision, International Center for Language Studies, Inc., B-418916.2, July 10, 2020 (unpublished decision), wherein our Office dismissed ICLS's protest challenging the award of a contract to Chi-Chiack, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247-19-R-0017, issued by the Department of the Army for language and culture services. We deny the request for reconsideration. View Decision Decision Matter of:  International Center for Language Studies, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-418916.2 Date:  September 9, 2020 David E. Fletcher, Esq., and Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. Daniel B. McConnell, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where our Office did not commit legal error when we determined that the initial protest allegation was untimely and did not qualify under the “significant issue” exception, or when we dismissed allegations that did not present valid bases of protest. DECISION   International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (ICLS), of Washington, D.C., requests reconsideration of our decision, International Center for Language Studies, Inc., B‑418916.2, July 10, 2020 (unpublished decision), wherein our Office dismissed ICLS’s protest challenging the award of a contract to Chi-Chiack, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91247‑19‑R‑0017, issued by the Department of the Army for language and culture services. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND On March 4, 2020, the Army issued the RFP to procure foreign language support and culture services.  Protest, exh. 1, RFP at 1, 28.  The selected contractor would provide language instruction, curriculum development, and translation services.  Id. at 54.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to be performed over a 1-month phase-in period, an 11‑month base period, and four 1-year option periods.  Id. at 29, 84.  Award was to be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable (LPTA) basis, considering mission capability, past performance, and price factors.  Protest, exh. 1, RFP at 111.    Four offerors, including ICLS and Chi-Chiack, submitted proposals by the April 17 close of the solicitation period.  Req. for Dismissal at 3.  The agency determined that the proposals submitted by Chi-Chiack, ICLS, and another firm were technically acceptable.  Req. for Dismissal, Ex. 2, Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) Excerpt at 1.  Chi-Chiack was the lowest-priced offeror, the other firm was the second-lowest-priced, and ICLS submitted the highest price of the three.  Id.  Based on the evaluation, the agency made award to Chi-Chiack at a price of $32,070,885.  On July 13, ICLS filed its protest with our Office.  ICLS first alleged that the Army unreasonably made its source selection decision using LPTA procedures because the acquisition did not meet the requisite conditions set forth under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.101-2-70.  Protest at 10-15.  ICLS argued that the allegation was timely under the significant issue exception as provided for in 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(c) because the issue was of widespread concern to the bid protest community, and had not been previously considered by our Office.  Id. at 13‑15  ICLS also alleged that the Army should have evaluated Chi-Chiack’s proposal as technically unacceptable because the firm did not propose labor categories satisfying the performance work statement requirements.  Protest at 16.  Specifically, ICLS argued that Chi-Chiack proposed “tutors” as opposed to “technical instructor/course developers” because the firm was unable to compensate “technical instructor/course developers” in accordance with the Service Contract Act (SCA) at its low total price.  Id. at 17-18.  Alternatively, ICLS alleged that Chi-Chiack must have objected to the requirement that employees be compensated in accordance with the SCA, and therefore should have been found ineligible for award.  Id. at 18-19. On August 5, the agency requested dismissal of the protest allegations.  Req. for Dismissal.  The agency argued that ICLS’s allegation challenging the use of LPTA procedures was an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation.  Id. at 7-8.  As to the remaining allegations, the agency argued that they were speculative because they were not supported by any factual evidence.  Id. at 9.  The Army also argued that ICLS was not an interested party because another firm was found technically acceptable, and had submitted a lower-priced proposal.  Id.