International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (15DDHQ21Q00000002)

B-419737.3 Dec 20, 2021 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (ICLS), a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Piedmont Global Language Solutions (PGLS), a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15DDHQ21Q00000002, issued by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for foreign language instruction services and materials. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee's quotation, violated the terms of the solicitation by failing to finalize a delivery order with the protester, and performed a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. The entire decision has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: International Center for Language Studies, Inc. File: B-419737.3 Date: December 20, 2021 David E. Fletcher, Esq., and Brenna D. Duncan, Esq., Perkins Coie LLP, for the protester. Alexander B. Ginsberg, Esq., Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Kevin R. Massoudi, Esq., and Robert C. Starling, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Piedmont Global Language Solutions, the intervenor. James E. Hicks, Esq., and Jeffrey Saylor, Department of Justice, for the agency. Hannah G. Barnes, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation under the solicitation’s performance work statement and prior experience factors is denied where the agency’s evaluation conclusions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that the agency failed to engage in meaningful discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency’s discussions with the protester led it into the areas of its quotation requiring amplification or revision, and the agency was not required to hold multiple rounds of discussions. 3. Protest that the agency performed a flawed best-value determination, based on an allegedly improper evaluation of quotations and improper weighting of technical and price factors, is denied where the agency’s actions were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION International Center for Language Studies, Inc. (ICLS), a small business of Washington, D.C., protests the establishment of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) with Piedmont Global Language Solutions (PGLS), a small business of Arlington, Virginia, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 15DDHQ21Q00000002, issued by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), for foreign language instruction services and materials. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated the awardee’s quotation, violated the terms of the solicitation by failing to finalize a delivery order with the protester, and performed a flawed best-value determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 26, 2021, the DEA issued the RFQ as a small business set-aside, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to “as many vendors as practicable.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The RFQ contemplated the establishment of a single fixed labor-hour rate BPA under General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Category 611630, for foreign language training and training materials to be provided to personnel throughout the United States and overseas. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 6. The RFQ provided that the contract would be performed over a 12‑month base period, with four 12-month option periods. Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The RFQ stated that award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three factors: prior experience, the vendor’s[1] performance work statement (PWS) submitted in response to the RFQ and statement of objectives, and price. RFQ at 2-3. The solicitation directed vendors to submit quotations in two separate volumes, with prior experience and the PWS in the technical volume and price in the business volume. Id. The RFQ advised that the agency anticipated selecting the best-suited vendor from the initial responses, without engaging in exchanges with them, and “strongly encourage[d]” vendors to submit their best technical solutions and price in their quotations. Id. at 4. As relevant here, the RFQ advised that the government reserved the right to communicate only with the apparent successful vendor. Id.