TITLE:  AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409.3, January 28, 2003
BNUMBER:  B-291409.3
DATE:  January 28, 2003
**********************************************************************
AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409.3, January 28, 2003

   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:   AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc.
    
File:            B-291409.3
    
Date:              January 28, 2003
    
John E. Jensen, Esq., Shaw Pittman, for the protester.
Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, for Worldwide
Language Resources, Inc., an intervenor.
Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of Interior, and John D. Inazu,
Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agencies.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Protest that agency was biased against protester is denied where evidence
does not demonstrate that agency acted to harm the protester and, in any
case, there is no showing that any alleged bias affected the protester's
competitive position.
DECISION
    
AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc. (ALC) protests the award of a contract
to Worldwide Language Resources, Inc. under a solicitation issued by the
Department of the Interior to procure linguists to support the Department
of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).  ALC complains
that the Air Force acted in bad faith and was biased against it.[1]
    
We deny the protest.
    
Interior issued the solicitation in accordance with Federal Acquisition
Regulation
S: 8.404 and the General Services Administration Federal Supply Schedule
(FSS) to four vendors holding applicable FSS schedule contracts, whose
names were provided to Interior by AFOSI.  Initially, ALC was not sent a
solicitation, as its name was not provided to Interior.  However, when
Interior learned that ALC was interested in the procurement, it provided
ALC with a copy of the solicitation and extended the due date for offers
so that ALC would have the opportunity to compete. 
The solicitation, for a fixed-price, level-of-effort contract, provided
for award based on a *best value* evaluation under three
factors--technical approach, past performance and price.  The technical
approach factor was comprised of four equally weighted subfactors: 
security clearances, project manager, qualifications, and management
approach.  ALC and Worldwide submitted proposals; Air Force personnel
evaluated the proposals under the technical and past performance factors
and Interior evaluated the offered prices.  As the two offerors received
identical ratings under all non-price factors, Interior made award to
Worldwide based on its significantly lower proposed price.
    
ALC maintains that the award to Worldwide was improper because the Air
Force was biased against ALC, as evidenced by the fact that it acted to
exclude ALC from the procurement.  In this regard, ALC notes that, despite
the fact that it was the incumbent linguist contractor for the 89th and
11th contracting squadrons and requested information regarding any
follow‑on contracts, it was not notified of the solicitation. 
Similarly, ALC asserts that, when it asked the Air Force about a
procurement for a follow‑on contract, the agency stated that the
current requirement no longer existed and that any new solicitation would
be announced in FedBizOps or solicited in accordance with the FSS.  ALC
notes that the requirement here was in fact a follow-on to the prior
contract, and that it was not announced in FedBizOps.
    
In order for a protester to succeed in a claim of bias on the part of a
contracting official, the record must establish that the official intended
to harm the protester, since government officials are presumed to act in
good faith; our Office will not attribute unfair or prejudicial motives to
procurement officials on the basis of inference or supposition.  Moreover,
in addition to producing credible evidence of bias, the protester must
show that the agency bias translated into action that unfairly affected
the protester's competitive position.  Docusort, Inc., B-254852.2, Feb.
22, 1995, 95-1 CPD P: 107 at 3. 
    
We find no showing of bias on the part of the agencies here.  The Air
Force and Interior both deny any bias against ALC or purposeful action to
exclude ALC from the competition, and the Air Force goes on to
specifically deny that the actions cited by ALC were improper.  For
example, the Air Force states that it did not initially provide ALC's name
to Interior as a possible source for the linguist services because it did
not consider ALC an incumbent contractor for this requirement, which was
not a follow‑on procurement to either of ALC's current contracts. 
Air Force Report (AFR) at 5.  The Air Force further explains that it did
not believe that ALC would be available to perform this requirement,
because it was to begin before ALC's current linguist contracts expired,
id. at 5, 6, and that it did not notify ALC of the pending solicitation
because the procurement was being conducted by Interior, not the
Air Force.  While the protester believes that the agency's actions were
designed to preclude the firm from competing, it has presented no evidence
establishing that such a motivation, rather than the agency's explanation,
was the basis for its actions.
    
Even if we disregarded the Air Force's explanation, the protester was
permitted to compete and there is nothing in the record to suggest, and
ALC does not allege, that bias on the agencies' part led to an
unreasonable or otherwise improper evaluation of its proposal.  Indeed,
while ALC did argue in its earlier protest (AllWorld Language Consultants,
Inc., supra) that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal with
respect to past performance, it abandoned this protest ground after
receiving the agency report.  In any case, as noted above, the determining
consideration in the award decision was Worldwide's significantly lower
price, not the evaluation of ALC's technical or past performance
proposals.  Again, in order to succeed in a claim of agency bias, the
protester must show that any agency bias translated into action that
unfairly affected the protester's competitive position.  Docusort, Inc.,
supra.  ALC has not made such a showing here.
    
ALC also complains that the agency failed to follow the solicitation's
evaluation scheme.  Specifically, ALC asserts, although offerors were
required to submit resumes for all proposed linguists, the agency based
its evaluation of Worldwide
on its use of incumbent ALC employees, rather than on its submitted
resumes. 
This argument is without merit.  Worldwide's proposal included resumes for
proposed personnel, but also provided that the firm intended to retain
qualified
and government approved incumbent personnel.  Worldwide Proposal at 9. 
The Air Force explains that it evaluated Worldwide's proposal based on
both the submitted resumes and the incumbent employee retention plan. 
Interior Report at 4.  Thus, the evaluation was consistent with both the
evaluation scheme and the contents of Worldwide's proposal.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

   ------------------------

   [1]This protest is related to an earlier protest by AllWorld against the
award to Worldwide, which we denied in our decision AllWorld Language
Consultants, Inc., B‑291409, B-291409.2, Dec. 16, 2002, 2003 CPD P:
__.