CGS-SSG Joint Venture (19AQMM21R0149)

B-420397,B-420397.2 Mar 16, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CGS-SSG Joint Venture (CGS-SSG) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Max Enterprises, of Mbabane, Eswatini, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM21R0149, issued by the Department of State for local guard services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of price proposals and alleges that the agency conducted misleading discussions. 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:  CGS-SSG Joint Venture File:  B-420397; B-420397.2 Date:  March 16, 2022 Robert Nichols, Esq., Andrew Victor, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for the protester. H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the intervenor. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Michael P. Price, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that an agency’s price evaluation unreasonably failed to convert the protester’s proposal from local currency to U.S. dollars is denied where the evaluation was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation criteria, and treated offerors equally. DECISION CGS-SSG Joint Venture (CGS-SSG) of Falls Church, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Max Enterprises, of Mbabane, Eswatini, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM21R0149, issued by the Department of State for local guard services.  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of price proposals and alleges that the agency conducted misleading discussions. We deny the protest. Background On May 5, 2021, the agency issued the RFP seeking proposals for local guard services at the U.S. Embassy in Mbabane, Eswatini.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 12, Conformed RFP at 10.  The RFP contemplated the award of a contract with a base period of 1-year and four 1‑year options.  Id.  The RFP requested that offerors submit technical and price proposals and provided for award to be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis.[1]  Id. at 110, 113.  The RFP required foreign-based firms to submit offers in local currency (Lilangeni), but provided that U.S. firms could submit proposals in either local currency or U.S. dollars (USD).  See id. at 100.  As discussed below, the RFP also incorporated Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.225-17, which explained how the agency would evaluate prices in the event the agency received offers in multiple currencies.  Id. at 110. The agency received initial proposals from four offerors, including CGS-SSG and Max Enterprises, by the initial closing date for receipt of proposals of June 7.  See AR, Tab 35, Award Determination at 2.  After its initial evaluation of proposals, the agency opened discussions with offerors.  The agency held three rounds of discussions, culminating in the receipt of final proposal revisions by the closing date of September 30.  AR, Tab 34, Price Analysis at 16.  The agency’s final evaluation was limited to an evaluation of the proposals submitted by CGS-SSG and Max Enterprises, after the proposals of the other two offerors were eliminated from the competition for reasons unrelated to this protest.  Id.   After receiving final proposals, the contracting officer noted that Max Enterprises, as a foreign firm, submitted its proposal in local currency, as required.  Id.  Further, the contracting officer noted that CGS-SSG proposed in both dollars and local currency, but because CGS-SSG requested to be paid in dollars, the firm’s proposed dollar pricing would be used for the evaluation.  Id. The contracting officer converted Max Enterprises’s local currency offer to dollars, using the exchange rate in effect on September 30, the due date for receipt of final proposal revisions, as required by the RFP.[2]  Id. at 16-17.  The agency then evaluated Max Enterprises’s converted pricing against the protester’s offered dollars pricing.[3]  Id.