TITLE:  AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-291409; B-291409.2;
DATE:  December 16, 2002
**********************************************************************
AllWorld Language Consultants, Inc., B-291409; B-291409.2;, December 16, 2002

   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; B-291409.2;
    
Date:              December 16, 2002
    
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, for the agency.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
1.  Protest that agency improperly failed to consider that awardee's price
proposal is unrealistically low is denied where solicitation contemplated
award of a fixed-price contract, and did not provide that realism
evaluation would be conducted for purposes of evaluating technical
understanding.
    
2.  Protest that, in evaluating awardee's technical proposal, agency
failed to consider that certain linguists offered by awardee were
currently employed by protester and had signed agreements not to work for
any other firm, is denied where source selection official was aware of the
agreements and determined that they would have no impact on performance.
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 asserts
that the agency misevaluated Worldwide's technical and price proposals.
    
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 vendors holding applicable FSS schedule
contracts.  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 and past performance factors were significantly more important
than price.  The technical approach factor was comprised of four equally
weighted subfactors:  how personnel would obtain 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.  The two proposals received identical
ratings--*exceeds* for the security clearances and qualifications
subfactors, *meets* for the project manager and management approach
subfactors, and *meets* for the past performance factor.  Worldwide's
offered price was [DELETED], and ALC's [DELETED].  Since the two proposals
were considered equal with respect to the technical and past performance
factors, Interior made award to Worldwide based on price. 
    
WORLDWIDE PRICE PROPOSAL
    
ALC protests that, in reaching the award decision, Interior improperly
failed to consider that Worldwide's offered price is unrealistically low. 
This argument is without merit.  Where, as here, a solicitation
contemplates the award of a fixed-price, rather than a cost-reimbursement,
contract, the agency is not required to conduct a price realism analysis,
because a fixed‑price contract places the risk and responsibility
for loss on the contractor rather than the government.  PHP Healthcare
Corp.; Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, B-251799 et al., May 4,
1993, 93-1 CPD P: 366 at 5.  An agency may provide for a price realism
analysis for the limited purpose of measuring offerors' understanding of
the requirements or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror's proposal,
but there is no requirement that it do so.  Id.  Here, the solicitation
did not provide that the agency would conduct a price realism analysis, or
otherwise assess technical understanding with reference to the offered
prices.  Consequently, since the agency determined that Worldwide is
responsible and, thus, that it can perform at its offered price,
Worldwide's low price does not provide a basis for questioning the award. 
WorldTravelService, B-284155.3, Mar. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD P: 68 at 3. 
    
QUALIFICATIONS SUBFACTOR
    
Noting that five of the Arabic linguists Worldwide proposed are current
ALC employees, and have signed agreements not to work for a competing
contractor on a contract in support of AFOSI, ALC maintains that the
evaluation of Worldwide's proposal as *exceeds* under the qualifications
subfactor was unreasonable.  ALC asserts that the Air Force and Interior
were aware of the non-competition agreements from an August 28, 2002
letter ALC sent to personnel at both agencies, but failed to notify the
technical evaluators of the agreements. 
    
We find the evaluation here unobjectionable.  It does appear from the
record that the evaluators were not advised of the non‑competition
agreements, and that they thus did not take this information into account
when they rated Worldwide's proposal under this factor.  However, the
record also shows that, before reaching the award decision on September
20, the contracting officer, who was also the source selection authority,
did specifically consider whether the non-competition agreements would
have an impact on Worldwide's ability to perform.  Memorandum for Record,
Sept. 18, 2002, at 11; Contracting Officer's Statement at 11.  The
contracting officer concluded that, since Worldwide's proposal showed that
it had 389 Arabic-speaking linguists available to perform the contract,
addressed the performance of the contract with current staff and offered a
system to recruit employees, the non-competition agreements did not affect
the proposal's *exceeds* rating under the qualifications subfactor. 
Contracting officers are not bound by lower level evaluators, and may make
their own judgments regarding the merits of a proposal.  See R.C.O.
Reforesting, B‑280774.2, Nov. 24, 1998, 98-2 CPD P: 119 at 2.  Thus,
the fact that the contracting officer, rather than the technical
evaluators, considered the impact of the non-competition agreements does
not affect the award decision. 
    
There was nothing unreasonable in the contracting officer's rating
Worldwide's proposal *exceeds* under the qualifications subfactor.  Under
that subfactor, offerors were to *state the qualifications that meet the
requirements of the PWS; submit resumes for all proposed linguists;
provide announcements that will be used to recruit new employees or any
other plans to recruit new employees.*  In other words, this subfactor
related generally to the overall qualifications of the offeror to perform
the contract work; the linguists identified in the proposal were only one
of several considerations.  In evaluating Worldwide's proposal, the
contracting officer concluded that Worldwide's overall qualifications for
the work--and, in particular, its access to hundreds of Arabic-speaking
linguists and its recruitment plans--warranted an *exceeds* rating,
notwithstanding the fact that 5 of the 21 identified linguists were
covered by non-competition agreements.  Given the agency's conclusions
that
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Worldwide's qualifications were exceptional, Consensus Evaluation at 1,
and that
Worldwide would be able to provide the required linguists, the evaluation
of Worldwide's proposal under this subfactor was reasonable. [1]
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
    
    

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

   [1] In its protest, ALC raised a number of additional issues to which the
agency responded in its report, including, for example, assertions that
the agency unreasonably evaluated ALC's past performance, and failed to
consider that Worldwide would not be able to begin performance on time. 
ALC did not rebut the agency's responses to these issues in its comments
on the report; accordingly, we consider these issues abandoned and have
not addressed them in this decision.  See Westinghouse Gov't and Envtl.
Servs. Co., Inc., B-280928 et al., Dec. 4, 1998, 99‑1 CPD P: 3 at 7
n.6.