Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (70CDCR24Q00000001)

B-422536,B-422536.2,B-422536.3 Jul 24, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS), a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the firm's exclusion from consideration under Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70CDCR24Q00000001, issued for language services. The protester challenges the agency's determination that its quotation was unacceptable. 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: Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. File: B-422536; B-422536.2; B-422536.3 Date: July 24, 2024 Ryan C. Bradel, Esq., and Brian S. Yu, Esq., Ward & Berry, PLLC, for the protester. Adam L. Hill, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Samantha S. Lee, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's quotation as unacceptable is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that the protester's quotation did not satisfy material terms and conditions of the solicitation. DECISION Legal Interpreting Services, Inc. (LIS), a small business of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the firm's exclusion from consideration under Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) request for quotation (RFQ) No. 70CDCR24Q00000001, issued for language services. The protester challenges the agency's determination that its quotation was unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on March 6, 2024, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, to holders of DHS's Language Services II blanket purchase agreement (BPA). Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The agency sought quotations to provide telephonic and on-site oral interpretation, written translation, and transcription through a language phone line that is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Id.; Agency Report (AR), Tab 40, RFQ at 1.[1] The solicitation contemplated issuance of a single labor-hour type call order with a 1year base period and four 1-year option periods. RFQ at 1-2. The solicitation provided for award to be made on a best-value tradeoff basis. Id. at 8. Relevant here, the RFQ required a written self-certification from the vendor that the quotation was within the scope of the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract used as the basis for the Language Services II BPA. Id. at 5. Also, the RFQ advised that ICE's requirement did not include guaranteed minimum quantities for the language services to be provided. Id. As a result, the solicitation warned vendors that a quotation would be ineligible for award if the vendor's GSA schedule contract “contains any guaranteed minimum quantities for any service.” Id. The agency received proposals from five vendors by the April 9, deadline for submission of quotations. COS at 3. In preparation for the acceptability review of quotations, the agency downloaded copies of each vendor's FSS contract from GSA's eLibrary website.[2] See id. The protester's FSS contract, as reflected in the downloaded version, included minimum word counts for translation services and minimum hours for interpretation services. AR, Tab 16, LIS GSA Schedule at 29, 32. On April 10, the agency notified LIS that its quotation “did not pass the acceptability review” based on the two minimums identified in the GSA Schedule contract. AR, Tab 17, Acceptability Letter. LIS asked the agency to reconsider. COS at 3. On April 12, the agency notified the protester that, after further review, LIS's quotation remained unacceptable. Id. at 3. This protest followed. DISCUSSION LIS argues that the agency erred in finding the firm's quotation unacceptable because of the minimums identified in its FSS contract. Protest at 4. The protester also asserts that the agency's acceptability review unfairly deemed only LIS unacceptable even though the FSS contracts of other vendors contained similar minimums, and that the agency otherwise treated LIS unfairly and favored other vendors. 1st Supp. Protest at 1-2; Comments & 2nd Supp. Protest at 5-8; Supp. Comments at 213. Although we do not specifically address all of LIS's arguments, we have fully considered all of them and find that they afford no basis on which to sustain the protest. Procurement Integrity Act Allegation As an initial matter, LIS argued that the contracting officer violated the procurement integrity provisions of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2107, known as the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA). Protest at 4-5.