BNUMBER: B-274744
DATE: December 26, 1996
TITLE: Centra Technology, Inc.
**********************************************************************
DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a
GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by
the parties involved for public release.
Matter of:Centra Technology, Inc.
File: B-274744
Date:December 26, 1996
Thomas L. Patten, Esq., and Vivian C. Strache, Esq., Latham & Watkins,
for the protester.
Paul F. Khoury, Esq., and Mark H. Neblett, Esq., Wiley, Rein &
Fielding, an intervenor.
Bernard J. Roan, Esq., and Donna J. Bartoe, Esq., National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, for the agency.
Sylvia Schatz, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest that evaluation failed to take into account experience of
protester's proposed subcontractor is denied where record shows this
experience was considered, but was rated as only "fair," compared to
the awardee's rating of "excellent," since protester and its proposed
subcontractors had limited experience compared to the incumbent
awardee.
2. Protester's proposed travel costs properly were adjusted upward
based on the costs under the incumbent contract, where protester's
proposal failed to provide the basis of the estimates for its
proposed travel costs, as required by the solicitation, and the
incumbent contract was based on the same performance approach as
protester proposed.
DECISION
Centra Technology, Inc. (CTI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Defense
Group, Inc. (DGI), protests the award of a contract to TechTrans
International, Inc. (TTI) under request for proposals (RFP) No.
9-BP2-H50-6-01P, issued by the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) for Russian language and logistics services for
the Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas. CTI challenges the
evaluation of its proposal and argues that the award was improper due
to an improper conflict of interest.
We deny the protest.
The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract on a
best value basis for translation, interpretation, language training,
and logistics services at various sites in the United States and
Russia. The solicitation set forth the following three equally
weighted factors: (1) mission suitability; (2) cost; and (3) relevant
experience and past performance. Under the mission suitability
factor, proposals were to receive both a numerical and an adjectival
(excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor) rating, which then was
subject to adjustment based on a cost realism analysis. In this
regard, proposed costs were to be evaluated to establish probable
cost, which would not be scored.
Six proposals were received. CTI's and TTI's proposals (the only ones
relevant here) were scored as follows:
FACTOR CTI TTI
Mission Suitability
(1,000 available points)453/fair 636[1]/good
Relevant Experience/
Past Performance fair excellent
Probable Cost $42,456,000 $41,602,000
The source selection official (SSO) determined that TTI's proposal was
the best value to the government based on its highest technical
ratings and lowest probable cost and thus made award to TTI without
discussions.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE/PAST PERFORMANCE
CTI asserts that the agency admitted during the debriefing following
the award that it had not considered any of the relevant experience of
its proposed subcontractor, Universal Technical Translation, Inc.
(UTT), which allegedly had 18 years of Russian language translation
and interpretation experience on multi-million dollar contracts
(including subcontract experience on TTI's incumbent contract). Since
this allegedly is more experience than TTI has, CTI maintains that its
proposal's rating of fair in this area was erroneous in light of TTI's
excellent rating.
In reviewing an evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical
proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure
that it was reasonable. Comarco, Inc., B-249697.2, Jan. 26, 1993,
93-1 CPD para. 65.
Notwithstanding the agency's alleged statements at the debriefing, the
record shows that the SSEB did in fact consider UTT's experience (as
well as that of EAI Corporation, another proposed subcontractor and
CTI's parent company, DGI[2]). It rated CTI's proposal as only fair
for two principal reasons: most of the personnel involved in DGI's
and EAI's prior contracts were scientists who primarily performed
research and development tasks on aeronautics rather than Russian
language interpretation and translation services, as required here;
and, although the SSEB determined that UTT had significant translation
experience, it also found that the firm had limited interpretation and
training experience, and no logistics experience, two elements of the
work under the RFP. In contrast, the SSEB determined that, while
TTI's experience was limited to its incumbent NASA contract, that
experience extended into all areas of the RFP, and TTI's performance
was superior. Specifically, TTI provided (1) translators who handled
large volumes of materials, often under very short deadlines, while
maintaining high quality and completing the translations on or ahead
of schedule; (2) a large number of interpreters who handled an
increasing volume of interpretations in all areas of medicine,
engineering, and other sciences at numerous teleconferences and
meetings were available on short notice (as little as a few minutes);
(3) all logistics support at different locations in Russia; and (4)
Russian language training classes on a continual basis. We find
nothing erroneous in the agency's findings or unreasonable in its
conclusion that the differences in the offerors' experience/past
performance warranted rating TTI's proposal superior to CTI's in this
area.
COST
CTI argues that the agency improperly adjusted its proposed travel
costs upward (by $3,933,000) based on the travel costs experienced
under TTI's incumbent contract; CTI maintains that, in doing so, the
agency ignored its unique staffing approach of employing Russian-based
translators and interpreters, which would reduce travel costs.
When an agency evaluates proposals for the award of a
cost-reimbursement contract, a cost realism analysis must be performed
to determine the extent to which an offeror's proposed costs represent
what the contract should cost, assuming reasonable economy and
efficiency. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sec. 15.605(c) (FAC
90-31); Sabre Sys., Inc., B-255311, Feb. 22, 1994, 94-1 CPD para. 129.
Because the contracting agency is in the best position to make this
cost realism determination, our review of an agency's realism
determination is limited to considering whether it was reasonable.
Titan Corp., B-260557.2, July 18, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 89.
The RFP required offerors to identify travel and subsistence costs by
contract period and to provide the basis of the estimate for their
proposed travel costs. Notwithstanding this requirement, CTI's cost
proposal was devoid of any explanation as to the assumptions
underlying CTI's proposed travel costs. The agency found, for
example, that while CTI's spreadsheets calculated the total price per
employee of a trip to Moscow--by multiplying the total amount for
airfare, subsistence, car rental, and miscellaneous expenses by the
number of days per trip, and then indicated the total number of trips
and personnel needed for each trip--the proposal did not explain how
CTI calculated the total number of proposed trips, the length of each
trip, and the number of personnel required for each trip. Due to the
lack of such information, the SSEB looked to TTI's current contract
for guidance as to probable travel costs. This comparison was
appropriate, the agency determined, since CTI's proposed
approach--i.e., using foreign local translators and interpreters--was
similar to TTI's. Based on this comparison, the agency increased
CTI's travel costs from $1.167 million to $5.1 million.
The cost adjustment was reasonable. Given the absence of required
explanatory information from CTI's proposal--CTI does not explain why
it did not provide the assumptions on which its travel costs were
based--it was reasonable for the agency to evaluate CTI's probable
costs by reference to the costs under a similar approach. Although
CTI asserts that its staffing approach is unique, the agency
specifically determined that it was similar to the approach under
TTI's current contract--TTI's proposal stated that its ". . . multiple
sources of interpreters and translators throughout the U.S. and in
Moscow has allowed us to reduce travel and subsistence costs by using
local support . . ."--and CTI does not refute this determination.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CTI maintains that the director of the Johnson Space Center, who
appointed the deputy director of the Center as the SSO, had a close
personal relationship with the president of TTI. CTI argues that
since the SSO was in a subordinate position to the director, the
personal relationship between the director and the president of TTI
improperly influenced the SSO's source selection decision in favor of
TTI.
Where a protester alleges bias or conflict of interest on the part of
a procurement official, the question is whether the official exerted
improper influence in the procurement on behalf of the awardee or
against the protester. E.J. Richardson Assocs., Inc., B-250951, Mar.
1, 1993, 93-1 CPD para. 185.
There is no evidence of improper influence here. Although the
director appointed the deputy director as the SSO prior to the SSO's
selection of the SSEB members, the record shows that the director was
not involved in the evaluation of proposals, the source selection
process or any other matters related to the procurement. Nor is there
any evidence that the director had any contact with the SSO or the
SSEB during the course of the procurement, or that the SSO was in any
way influenced by the director's personal relationship with TTI's
president. We note, furthermore, that we have found no merit to
CTI's allegations that its proposal was improperly evaluated relative
to TTI's. There thus is no basis for finding an improper conflict of
interest.[3]
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The source selection evaluation board (SSEB) deducted (under the
mission suitability factor)
100 points from TTI's
original rating of 736
points and 150 points from
CTI's original rating of 603
points, after taking cost
realism into account.
2. The agency evaluated the experience of DGI because CTI was a
newly-formed company and had no past performance references.
3. CTI also argues that the director failed to effectively recuse
himself from participating in the procurement, since he did not
execute a written recusal. While FAR sec. 3.104-6(d) requires
procurement officials who wish to discuss future employment or
business opportunities with a competing contractor during the conduct
of a procurement to provide a written proposal of disqualification
from further participation in the procurement which relates to that
competing contractor, there is no similar requirement for a written
recusal under the circumstances here. Since the record shows that the
director, in fact, did not participate in the procurement, the absence
of a written recusal would constitute a mere formality that would not
affect the propriety of the award.