The Mission Essential Group, LLC (H92402-23-R-0002)

B-421745.4 Apr 02, 2025 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Mission Essential Group, LLC, of New Albany, Ohio, protests the scope of the agency's corrective action following its prior protest of the award of a contract to Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92402-23-R-0002, issued by the United States Special Operations Command for linguist support services. The protester alleges that the agency's proposed corrective action is both unreasonable and unfairly benefits WWLR. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: The Mission Essential Group, LLC File: B-421745.4 Date: April 2, 2025 Craig A. Holman, Esq., and Thomas A. Pettit, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholar LLP, for the protester. Colonel Nina R. Padalino, Michael Farr, Esq., Erika Whelan-Retta, Esq., Jerome P. Duggan, Esq., and Major Craig M. Brunson, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Michael Willems, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the scope of agency corrective action taken in response to the protester’s prior protest is denied where the agency reasonably limited the scope of discussions to address only the issues that led the agency to take corrective action. DECISION The Mission Essential Group, LLC, of New Albany, Ohio, protests the scope of the agency’s corrective action following its prior protest of the award of a contract to Worldwide Language Resources, LLC (WWLR), of Fayetteville, North Carolina, under request for proposals (RFP) No. H92402-23-R-0002, issued by the United States Special Operations Command for linguist support services. The protester alleges that the agency’s proposed corrective action is both unreasonable and unfairly benefits WWLR. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP was initially issued on April 3, 2023, and contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a 5-year ordering period. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2. The solicitation included a preliminary factor--general administrative and qualifying criteria--to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, RFP at 198. Proposals that failed the initial factor were not evaluated further. Id. The solicitation then contemplated a best-value tradeoff among four additional factors: (1) transition plan; (2) management plan; (3) past performance; and (4) price. Id. Five proposals were received by the original proposal due date in May of 2023. COS at 3. Four of those proposals received a pass rating for the preliminary factor, but ultimately only three proposals were selected for inclusion in the competitive range: Mission Essential, WWLR, and SOS International LLC (SOSi).[1] Id. at 4. The agency then issued evaluation notices (ENs) to all three remaining offerors and solicited final proposal revisions on February 9, 2024. Id. On May 10, the agency concluded that WWLR’s proposal represented the best value to the government and made award to WWLR. Id. Following a debriefing, Mission Essential filed a protest with our Office challenging the award to WWLR on several grounds, and subsequently filed a supplemental protest that included an allegation that WWLR’s management plan should have been assessed a deficiency because its small business subcontracting plan did not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Id. at 5. The agency elected to take corrective action committing to reevaluate proposals and take other corrective action as appropriate, and we dismissed the protest as academic. AR, Tab 25, Notice of Corrective Action; The Mission Essential Group, LLC, B-421745.2, B-421745.3, Aug. 19, 2024 (unpublished decision). Subsequently, the agency reevaluated proposals and issued a new set of ENs to each of the three offerors. COS at 6-7. However, the agency limited the scope of proposal revisions to the scope of the issues identified in the ENs as well as any other portions of the proposal materially impacted by revisions necessary to address the ENs. See, e.g., AR, Tab 32, Request for Final Proposal Revisions to Mission Essential at 1. This protest followed. DISCUSSION The protester raises two primary challenges to the scope of the agency’s corrective action. Protest at 30-37. First, the protester alleges that the agency has improperly limited proposal revisions in a way that is impermissible, unequal, and unfair, primarily because the agency has limited offerors to revising only those portions of their proposals identified in the ENs and the ENs differ between offerors, thus allowing offerors unique opportunities to revise their respective proposals. Id.