TITLE: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3
DATE: March 29, 2007
**************************************************************************************
B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3, L-3 Communications Titan Corporation, March 29, 2007

   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: L-3 Communications Titan Corporation

   File: B-299317; B-299317.2; B-299317.3

   Date: March 29, 2007

   W. Jay DeVecchio, Esq., Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Esq., Kevin C. Dwyer,
   Esq., William M. Hohengarten, Esq., Richard W. Arnholt, Esq., Luke C.
   Platzer, Esq., and Edward Jackson, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the
   protester.

   William L. Walsh, Jr, Esq., J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Peter A. Riesen,
   Esq., Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Kristen E. Burgers, Esq., Rebecca E.
   Pearson, Esq., and Anthony James Pagano, Esq., Venable LLP, for Global
   Linguist Solutions, LLC, an intervenor.

   Raymond M. Saunders, Esq., and Capt. Christopher L. Krafchek, Department
   of the Army, for the agency.

   Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Ralph O. White, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Evaluation record fails to reasonably support the agency's conclusion
   that protester's proposal of [deleted] linguists is more likely to create
   shortfalls against the solicitation's requirements to fill 7,217 linguist
   positions than awardee's proposal of [deleted] linguists.

   2. Where solicitation established specific evaluation benchmarks for
   evaluation of offerors' experience, and provided for comparative
   assessments against those benchmarks, an agency may not substitute a
   previously unidentified "threshold of sufficiency" as an evaluation
   benchmark against which proposals are evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

   3. Evaluation scheme which effectively penalizes one offeror for proposing
   [deleted] and effectively rewards a competing offeror for proposing
   [deleted] fails to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation requirement
   that evaluation factors must support meaningful comparison and
   discrimination between and among competing proposals.

   DECISION

   L-3 Communications Titan Corporation (L-3) protests the Department of the
   Army's award of a contract to Global Linguist Solutions, LLC (GLS) under
   request for proposals (RFP) No. W911W4-05-R-0001 to provide interpretation
   and translation services for the U.S. armed forces in Iraq. L-3 challenges
   the agency's evaluation of proposals under each of the solicitation's
   evaluation factors, including factors related to fill rate, experience,
   and transition.

   We sustain the protest.

   BACKGROUND

   In June 2006, the Army released the solicitation at issue, seeking
   proposals to provide linguistic services in Iraq.[1] Agency Report (AR),
   Tab 10, at 120-294.[2] The solicitation provided for award of an
   indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract for a 5-year period,
   during which individual task orders will be issued; offerors were advised
   that "[t]he maximum of all orders under the contract is $4.65 Billion."
   Id. at 123.

   The solicitation identified the linguist staffing levels, by category,[3]
   that will be required under the first task order ("task order 1"), and
   provided that various aspects of the offerors' proposals would be
   evaluated against the task order 1 requirements.[4] Id. at 247-49, 288.

   Offerors were advised that award would be based on the proposal offering
   the best value to the government considering the following evaluation
   factors: management, past performance, and cost.[5] Id. at 252. With
   regard to the most important factor, management, the solicitation
   identified the following subfactors: fill rate, experience, sustainment,
   staffing plan, transition plan and small business participation.[6] Id.

   On or before the August 14, 2006 closing date, proposals were submitted by
   three offerors, including GLS and L-3.[7] The proposals were evaluated by
   a management evaluation team (MET),[8] a cost evaluation team (CET),[9]
   and a past performance evaluation team (PPET);[10] thereafter, discussions
   were conducted during which various "Items for Discussion" (IFDs) were
   sent to each offeror. The offerors provided written responses to the IFDs
   and, at the conclusion of the discussion period, each offeror submitted a
   final proposal revision (FPR). Following submission of FPRs, the MET's
   ratings with regard to the most important management factor were as
   follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                    |       GLS       |       L-3       |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Fill Rate                           |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Experience                          |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Sustainment                         |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Staffing                            |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Transition                          |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Small Business                      |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |------------------------------------+-----------------+-----------------|
   |Overall Mgmt. Rating                |    [deleted]    |    [deleted]    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 67, Source Selection Decision, at 4,535.

   Under the past performance factor, [deleted] L-3's and GLS's proposal
   received ratings of [deleted]. AR, Tab 66, at 4,459. With regard to cost,
   L-3's final evaluated cost was [deleted]; GLS's final evaluated cost was
   [deleted] billion. Id. at 4,461.

   The evaluation teams' reports were thereafter provided to the SSA and,
   following consultations with those teams and the chairs of the SSEB and
   SSAC, the SSA made various adjustments to the offerors' management
   ratings.[11] AR, Tab 67, at 4,540. Following the SSA's adjustments, the
   offerors' management ratings were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |                                   |        GLS        |      L-3       |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Fill Rate                          |[deleted]          |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Experience                         |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Sustainment                        |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Staffing                           |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Transition                         |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Small Business                     |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |-----------------------------------+-------------------+----------------|
   |Overall Mgmt. Rating               |     [deleted]     |   [deleted]    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   AR, Tab 67, Source Selection Decision, at 4,535.

   In lowering L-3's rating under the most important management subfactor,
   fill rate, the SSA stated:

     I judged L-3 Titan to be [deleted]. . . [T]here is a 1.1% shortfall
     built into the proposal that equates to a shortfall of approximately 70
     linguists based on the Task Order 1 requirement of approximately 7,000.
     This would perpetuate a significant shortfall and impact Army operations
     in Iraq. . . . As a result of this weakness, I judged L-3 Titan's
     proposal to be second strongest in this sufactor.

   AR, Tab 67 at 4,545.

   Thereafter, the SSA selected GLS's proposal for award, again referencing
   the solicitation's fill rate requirements, concluding:

     The GLS proposal constitutes least risk to the Government with the
     greatest assurance of achieving and sustaining required linguist
     levels. . . . The GLS proposal was [deleted] the L-3 Titan proposal in
     the Past Performance factor and although [deleted] more expensive, I
     consider GLS' proposal to be the best of all three proposals and worth
     the higher premium price.

   AR, Tab 67, at 4,547.

   L-3 was subsequently notified of the source selection decision. This
   protest followed.

   DISCUSSION

   L-3 protests the bases for the agency's evaluation regarding each of the
   management subfactors, including fill rate, experience, and transition
   plan. As discussed below, the agency's evaluations regarding these
   subfactors reflect various flaws.

   Fill Rate

   With regard to fill rate, section L of the solicitation directed offerors
   to "identify the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) linguists proposed
   to satisfy the positional assignments specified in . . . Task Order
   1."[12] AR, Tab 10, at 213. Section M of the solicitation advised offerors
   that the agency would assess the probability that "the Offeror will have
   available the necessary (Quantity and skill type) of CAT I, CAT II and CAT
   III linguists to successfully and timely perform the scope of work of
   [task order 1]." AR, Tab 10, at 247.

   There is no dispute in this record that, in order to meet the task order 1
   fill rate requirement of providing 7,217 FTE linguists (that is, providing
   3,744 productive hours per linguist per year), it will be necessary to
   hire and retain more than 7,217 linguists. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at
   664.[13] Accordingly, in addressing the fill rate requirements, L-3's
   proposal provided that, "to . . . meet 100% of Task Order 1 requirements
   in the future, we estimate that [deleted] Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
   will be required," specifically adding, "we propose to recruit and deploy
   these additional linguists to theater where they will be readily available
   to fill positions of linguists on leave [deleted] or absent [deleted]" AR,
   Tab 14, at 434.

   During discussions, the agency asked L-3 to provide additional information
   regarding this aspect of its proposal, requesting that L-3: "Provide
   detailed information on how the additional linguists [deleted] will be
   used when not deployed and identify where the costs are contained in your
   cost proposal." AR, Tab 46, at 3,062. L-3 responded to this request,
   stating:

     In response to the challenge to maintain 100% fill, we recommend hiring
     [deleted] above the Level of Effort (LOE) specified in the solicitation.
     At any one time, approximately [deleted] of L-3 Titan's linguist
     population is in a status that places the linguist "out of theater."
     [deleted]

     In order to meet 100% of the contract's "Boots on the Ground" number,
     L-3 Titan will be required to "replace" linguists that enter non-direct
     support categories with linguists that directly support the contract.
     This is an ongoing process. As a result, the contract-required LOE
     [level of effort] will remain as close to 100% as possible, [deleted].
     Current examples for L-3 Titan's Iraq-based Delivery Order 59
     demonstrate the following: [deleted].

     Whereas [deleted] linguists are in Iraq providing support to the INSCOM
     linguist contract, [deleted] are in a non-direct support category. Over
     the past two years, personnel in non-direct support categories have
     remained at the [deleted] rate.

   AR, Tab 46, at 3,062.

   In summary, L-3's proposal, and its response to this IFD, stated that, at
   any point in time, approximately [deleted] of L-3's linguists are expected
   to be in a non-productive status. The record establishes that the agency
   understood this concept and understood that L-3 was proposing to hire
   [deleted] linguists, that is, [deleted] over and above the 7,217 FTEs
   required by task order 1. Tr. at 89, 541-42. Further, the record is clear
   that the agency understood that [deleted] these costs are recovered in
   L-3's cost proposal [deleted]. AR, Tab 90, at 5579; Tr. at 550-53, 604-06,
   662-63, 666-67.

   Nonetheless, the agency criticized L-3's proposed approach on the basis
   that the data in the delivery order provided by L-3 in its response to the
   agency's IFD (that asked L-3 to discuss "how the additional linguists . .
   . will be used when not deployed") indicated that [deleted] of L-3's
   linguists were in a non-productive status under that delivery order--as
   compared to the slightly lower [deleted] additional linguists that L-3
   proposed to hire. Accordingly--based on the agency's projection of the
   single delivery order to the total task order 1 requirements--the agency
   concluded, "there is a 1.1% shortfall built into [L-3's] proposal that
   equates to a shortfall of approximately 70 linguists based on the Task
   Order 1 requirement of approximately 7,000." AR, Tab 67, at 4,545. Based
   on this projection, the agency assigned a weakness to L-3's proposal, and
   the SSA concluded in his source selection decision that "[a]s a result of
   this weakness, I judged L-3 Titan's proposal to be second strongest in
   this subfactor." Id.

   In addressing the fill rate requirement, GLS similarly stated that it was
   proposing to hire additional linguists above the 7,217 task order 1
   requirements. However, GLS proposed to hire [deleted] fewer additional
   linguists, stating:

     The timely commitment of linguists to theater is essential to the
     success of this effort. We estimate the number of Full Time Equivalent
     linguists necessary to fill post-transition Task Order (T.O.) 1 will be
     [deleted], with a total number of productive hours being [deleted]
     hrs/yr.

   AR, Tab 35, at 1,662.

   Further, the record is clear that the additional linguists proposed by GLS
   are to be used in the same manner as the additional linguists proposed by
   L-3--that is, to compensate for linguists that are in a non-productive
   status. Specifically, the agency's contemporaneous evaluation record
   includes a notation by the CET that states the additional hours proposed
   by GLS are "to cover transit and absence." AR, Tab 64, at 4,379. Further,
   the specific language of GLS's proposal, quoted above, provides that,
   although it intends to hire [deleted] linguists, it is only proposing "a
   total number of productive hours [of] [deleted]"--which is [deleted].
   Notwithstanding the similarity of approach taken by both offerors, the
   agency viewed GLS's proposal of [deleted] linguists as more likely to meet
   the solicitation's fill rate requirements than L-3's proposal of [deleted]
   linguists.

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate offerors'
   proposals; rather, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
   it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
   criteria and procurement statutes and regulations. E.g., Urban-Meridan
   Joint Venture, B-287168, B-287168.2, May 7, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 91 at 2.
   Although we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency, we
   will question the agency's conclusions where they are not reasonably
   based, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria or undocumented.
   Sonetronics, Inc., B-289459.2, Mar. 18, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 48 at 3.
   Where there is inadequate support for an agency's judgments, we are unable
   to conclude that the agency had a reasonable basis for its source
   selection decision. Southwest Marine, Inc.; American Sys. Eng'g Corp.,
   B-265865.3, B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 56 at 10.

   Here, it is clear that the critical criterion for assessing how many
   additional linguists will be needed to successfully meet the task order 1
   fill rate requirements for annual productive hours is the amount of time
   an offeror's linguists are expected to be in a non-productive status.
   Accordingly, it appears the only logical basis for the agency's conclusion
   that GLS's proposal of [deleted] linguists is more likely to meet the fill
   rate requirements than L-3's proposal of [deleted] linguists would be a
   rationally supported conclusion that GLS's [deleted] linguists are likely
   to spend [deleted] less time in a non-productive status than are L-3's
   [deleted] linguists. The record, however, is devoid of any meaningful
   analysis addressing that issue. Indeed, at the GAO hearing, the MET chair
   testified that the agency gave no consideration to whether the additional
   personnel proposed by GLS will be sufficient to compensate for its
   linguists' scheduled holidays and sick leave. Tr. at 526. Consistent with
   this testimony the record reflects no agency consideration of whether
   GLS's linguists will spend more or less time in a non-productive status,
   either scheduled or unscheduled, than L-3's linguists--nor has the agency
   represented that such analysis was performed. Absent the agency's
   consideration of this issue, reasonably documented and rationally
   supported by credible data, we are unable to conclude that the agency
   reasonably evaluated L-3's proposal of [deleted] linguists as being more
   likely to create a shortfall against the required fill rate than GLS's
   proposal of [deleted] linguists.

   Experience

   With regard to the second most important management subfactor, experience,
   section M of the solicitation provided for a comparative assessment
   regarding the "extent of [the offerors'] experience," stating:

     Proposals will be evaluated as more advantageous the greater the extent
     to which recent experience reflects the following scope of work
     requirements:

     (a) Interpreters and Translators speaking the required SCRL [specific
     contract required languages].

     (b) Recruiting, Hiring and Retaining of quantities of personnel similar
     to Task Order 1.

     (c) Managing personnel in an environment similar to the Task Order 1.

   AR, Tab 10, at 247.[14]

   In evaluating the proposals, the agency recognized that the scope of work
   reflected in L-3's performance of the incumbent contract was nearly
   identical to the scope of work here; in contrast, the scope of work
   reflected in GLS's performance of prior contracts was less similar. At the
   GAO hearing, the SSA expressly acknowledged that the extent of L-3's
   experience with "interpreters and translators speaking the required SCRL"
   was greater than that of GLS. Tr. at 142-43.

   Similarly, with regard to "Recruiting, Hiring and Retaining quantities of
   personnel similar to Task Order 1," the agency's evaluation record
   identifies the following "Strength" in L-3's proposal:

       o         Corporate and Key Personnel experience in large scale
       (>[deleted])[[15]]

   AR, Tab 86, at 5,549. I

   In the same document, discussing the experience rating for GLS's proposal,
   the following "Strength" is noted:

       o         Corporate experience in large scale (>[deleted] personnel)
       deployments in partner firms

   Id. at 5,548.

   Despite the solicitation's evaluation criteria stating that "[p]roposals
   will be evaluated as more advantageous the greater the extent to which
   recent experience reflects the . . . scope of work requirements," along
   with the record discussed above indicating that L-3's performance of the
   incumbent contract was nearly identical to the scope of work requirements
   at issue, while GLS's was not, the agency evaluated GLS's and L-3's
   proposal as equal under the experience subfactor.

   In discussing this matter at the GAO hearing, the SSA testified that,
   rather than applying the criteria established in the solicitation, he
   applied a "threshold of sufficiency." Specifically, the SSA testified as
   follows:

     Q. . . . I'm looking for the [solicitation] language here, "the
     proposals will be evaluated as more advantageous the greater the extent
     to which recent experience reflects the scope of work requirements." The
     scope of work requirements here are 7,000 personnel, am I right?

     A. That's correct . . . .

     Q. The GLS proposal was based on [deleted]; correct?

     A. That's correct. . . .

     Q. . . . yet they were evaluated equally . . .

     A. In my judgment, there was a threshold of sufficiency. And I thought,
     I judged, [deleted] was there. . . . And I thought that was the -- that
     was an adequate threshold for experience. So I don't -- that was my
     thinking.

   Tr. at 152-53.[16]

   While the evaluation of proposals is primarily within the discretion of
   the contracting agency, an agency may not announce in the RFP that one
   evaluation scheme will be used, and then follow another; once offerors are
   informed of the criteria against which their proposals will be evaluated,
   the agency must adhere to those criteria in evaluating proposals and
   making its award decision. Preferred Sys. Solutions, Inc., B-292322 et
   al., Aug. 25, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 166 at 6; Trijicon, Inc., B-244546,
   Oct. 25, 1991, 91-2 CPD para. 375 at 5.

   Here, contrary to the solicitation's express provisions that proposals
   would be comparatively evaluated against the task order 1 requirements,
   and would be evaluated as "more advantageous" the greater the extent to
   which an offeror's recent experience reflected those requirements, the
   agency applied materially different evaluation criteria, replacing the
   solicitation's comparative assessments with what was essentially the SSA's
   pass/fail assessment as to whether an offeror's experience was more than
   "trivial" or was greater than a previously unidentified "threshold of
   sufficiency."[17] Accordingly, the agency failed to apply the
   solicitation's stated evaluation criteria with regard to experience.

   Transition

   Finally, with regard to transition, the solicitation established a 90-day
   transition period and required that, at the end of this period, the
   awardee must be performing at the full task order 1 requirements level.
   AR, Tab 10, at 217, 248. In addressing the proposals to perform during the
   transition period, GLS and L-3 took what the CET chair described as
   "different approaches." Tr. at 613. More specifically, as the incumbent
   contractor, L-3's proposal offered to provide [deleted]; in contrast, GLS
   proposed what the CET chair described as [deleted]. Tr. at 613.
   Specifically, GLS [deleted]. Tr. at 639. Consistent with the materially
   different levels of effort being provided, GLS's evaluated cost for the
   transition period was [deleted], and L-3's evaluated cost for the
   transition period was [deleted]. AR, Tab 66, at 4,461.

   There is no dispute that the U.S. government's actual requirements for
   linguists during the transition period is not expected to differ in any
   material way from the task order 1 requirements. Similarly, there is no
   dispute that GLS's proposal to provide [deleted] during the transition
   period results in increased costs to the government, outside of the
   contract, in order to [deleted]. In contrast, L-3's proposal of [deleted]
   during the transition period, results in decreased costs the government
   will incur, outside of the contract, to [deleted]. In short, the offerors'
   "different approaches" to transition--which have a material effect on
   their respective evaluated costs under this procurement--have virtually no
   effect on the costs the government will actually incur for the required
   linguistic services during the transition period.

   During the GAO hearing, the CET chair testified on this issue as follows:

     Q.    . . . [I]n terms of actually providing interpreters/linguists to
     the warfighter, those requirements are not going to be any different
     during the transition period than during the contract performance
     period. Am I correct?

     A.     That's correct. . .

         * * * * *

     Q.    So . . . in terms of the cost to the taxpayer, the [deleted] level
     of effort and the [deleted] cost associated with GLS's proposal does not
     reflect . . . the costs to the taxpayer. Am I correct

     A.     Yes. There's a differential between the two of them.

         * * * * *

     Q.    Was there any discussion . . . in the source selection process of
     the fact that the [deleted] cost proposed by GLS did not reflect the
     cost to the taxpayer?

     A.     That was an issue that had been decided prior to the release of
     the RFP.

     Q.    That wasn't my question. Was -- during the source selection
     process, was this issue discussed?

     A.     Was it discussed informally among -- on the cost team? Yes, we
     had discussion. I mean, we recognized that that was a true statement,
     yes.

     Q.    And was there any discussion as to whether or not this was, in a
     sort of layman's term, fair?

     A.     What we looked at was . . . can we deal with that issue within
     the structure of the RFP? And what we concluded was that given the way
     the RFP was structured, we had no way of dealing with that particular
     issue.

   Tr. at 640-43.

   Based on the perception that there was "no way of dealing with" this
   issue, the agency simply incorporated each offeror's evaluated costs for
   the transition period into the total evaluated costs on which the source
   selection decision was based.

   To summarize, it appears that, due in large part to its incumbency, L-3
   was effectively penalized, with regard to its evaluated costs, for
   proposing to provide [deleted] to the government during the transition
   period and, conversely, GLS was effectively rewarded for proposing
   [deleted] during the transition period.

   We have long held that any source selection decision must rest upon a
   rational basis. Grey Advertising, Inc., B-184825, May 14, 1976, 76-1 CPD
   para. 325. Further, it is a fundamental principle of government
   procurement that a contracting agency must provide a common basis for
   competition and may not disparately evaluate offerors with regard to the
   same requirements. See, e.g., Lockheed Martin Info. Sys., B-292836 et al.,
   Dec. 18, 2003, 2003 CPD para. 230 at 11-12; Rockwell Elec. Commerce Corp.,
   B-286201 et al., Dec. 14, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 65 at 5. Finally, the
   Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provides that evaluation factors and
   significant subfactors must "support meaningful comparison and
   discrimination between and among competing proposals." FAR sect.
   15.304(b).

   Here, it appears that GLS's "different approach" to performance during the
   transition period was "different" only in that it [deleted]. In this
   regard, the agency has not identified any aspect of GLS's "different
   approach" that is otherwise beneficial to the government. Where, as here,
   the agency has placed significant importance on the offerors' capabilities
   to successfully provide 100% of the required linguists during the contract
   performance period, we do not view as rational or reasonable an evaluation
   scheme which effectively penalizes one offeror for proposing to provide
   the required linguists [deleted] and, conversely, effectively rewards a
   competing offeror for proposing to [deleted]--particularly when the costs
   associated with [deleted] accrue to the government; as such the evaluation
   scheme fails to comply with the FAR requirement that it support meaningful
   comparison and discrimination between the competing proposals.[18] See FAR
   sect. 15.304(b).

   The protest is sustained.

   RECOMMENDATION

   As discussed above, it appears the terms of the solicitation fail to
   reflect the agency's actual requirements with regard to experience and,
   with regard to transition, are perceived by the agency as precluding a
   reasonable evaluation of proposals against the same requirements.
   Accordingly, we recommend that the agency consider revising the terms of
   the solicitation with regard to experience and transition to reflect its
   actual requirements and to ensure that the offerors are being meaningfully
   evaluated against the same requirements. In any event, we recommend that
   the agency reopen discussions with all competitive range offerors, obtain
   revised proposals, and award a contract on the basis of the proposal
   offering the best value to the government, consistent with the
   solicitation. If an offeror other than GLS is selected for award, the
   agency should terminate GLS's contract and award to that offeror. We also
   recommend that the agency reimburse the protester for its costs of filing
   and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Bid
   Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(d)(1) (2006). L-3's certified
   claim for costs, detailing the time expended and costs incurred, must be
   submitted directly to the agency within 60 days of receiving this
   decision. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.8(f)(1).

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The solicitation describes the scope of contract requirements as
   "services necessary to rapidly and securely recruit and deploy foreign
   language interpretation and translation services in support of United
   States Army . . . attached forces, combined forces, and joint elements who
   are executing the military mission known as Operation Iraq Freedom. . . .
   The interpreters and translators will be required to accompany military
   units during military missions. . . . This effort requires skilled
   contract linguists with various foreign language capabilities to support
   current intelligence efforts." AR, Tab 10, at 126-27.

   [2] The agency report responding to L-3's protest was submitted with each
   page consecutively numbered, employing a system commonly referred to as
   "Bates stamping." Our citations to particular pages within the agency
   report refer to the "Bates stamped" pagination.

   [3] The solicitation identified three categories of linguists to be
   provided under the contract: category I (CAT I) linguists are non-U.S.
   citizens and do not require security clearances; category II (CAT II)
   linguists must be U.S. citizens who have been screened and granted interim
   secret security clearances; category III (CAT III) linguists must be U.S.
   citizens who either possess top secret security clearances or who, after
   prescribed counterintelligence screening, have been granted interim top
   secret clearances. AR, Tab 10, at 130-31.

   [4] The solicitation stated that, under task order 1, a total of 7,217
   full-time equivalent (FTE) linguist positions (6,130 CAT I, 952 CAT II,
   and 135 CAT III) must be filled, and further provided that "an FTE year
   will consist of a total of 3744 total productive hours (12 hours a day; 6
   days a week; 52 weeks a year)." Id. at 213, 288

   [5] The solicitation provided that management was more important than past
   performance, which was more important than cost. Id. at 252.

   [6] The solicitation provided that the fill rate subfactor was
   significantly more important than the experience subfactor, which was more
   important than the remaining subfactors, which were all of equal
   importance. Id.

   [7] The third offeror's proposal is not relevant to resolution of this
   protest, and is not further discussed.

   [8] Under the management factor and its subfactors, the MET assigned
   adjectival ratings of "Excellent," "Good," "Adequate," "Marginal," or
   "Poor." AR, Tab 7, at 67.

   [9] With regard to evaluation of cost, the solicitation stated, "All cost
   proposal information . . . will be evaluated based on: (a) Reasonable and
   realistic data; (b) Offeror having a clear understanding of the
   requirements; and (c) Appropriate number of hours and skill levels that
   accurately reflects the proposed staffing plan." This section of the
   solicitation also provided that "[t]he evaluated cost will be determined
   by adjusting each Offeror's proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to
   reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels
   when compared to the Offeror's proposed approach." AR, Tab 10, at 251.

   [10] The evaluation teams, in the aggregate, formed the source selection
   evaluation board (SSEB) and reported, through the source selection
   advisory council (SSAC), to the source selection authority (SSA).

   [11] The SSA did not make any changes to the past performance ratings or
   to the offerors' evaluated costs.

   [12] As noted above, task order 1 required a total of 7,217 FTEs and
   defined an FTE as "3,744 productive hours (12 hours a day; 6 days a week;
   52 weeks a year)." AR, Tab 10, at 213, 288.

   [13] In resolving this protest, GAO conducted a 2-day hearing, during
   which testimony was provided by the SSA, the SSAC chair, the MET chair,
   and the CET chair. At the hearing, the CET chair testified: "There's no
   question that in order to get 7217 FTEs, you will need to hire more than
   7217 people. You'll have to have more heads." Id.

   [14] This section of the solicitation further provided that "To the extent
   that an Offeror and its subcontractors have limited experience regarding
   some or all the above, but have key personnel who will be playing a
   significant role in this effort who do have applicable experience, the
   experience of the individuals may be considered in the Government's
   evaluation." Id.

   [15] As noted above, task order 1 contemplates hiring over 7,000
   personnel.

   [16] Similarly, despite acknowledging that L-3 had a "greater extent" of
   experience with regard to interpreters and translators speaking the
   required languages, the SSA testified as follows:

     Q.    Well, but you didn't give them any benefit with respect to this
     subfactor, did you?

     A.     We noted the differences in the scope of work that was provided.
     My judgment was that although different, that the scope that GLS - the
     numbers of translators that GLS was providing was substantial, not
     trivial . . . and that the experience level was substantive and
     therefore on a par.

   Tr. at 143-44.

   [17] In defending against this protest, the agency notes that one of the
   key personnel proposed by GLS has experience in managing [deleted]
   personnel. Even if we viewed the management experience of GLS's key
   personnel as an appropriate proxy for GLS's corporate experience,
   [deleted] personnel is still significantly less than the task order 1
   benchmark of over 7,000 personnel established by the solicitation.

   [18] We recognize that the agency has argued that L-3 was required to have
   raised this matter prior to submitting its proposal and, therefore, that
   the issue is not properly for GAO's consideration pursuant to our
   timeliness rules. See 4 C.F.R. 21.2(a)(1) (2006). We also recognize that,
   in order to have raised this issue prior to submitting its proposal, L-3
   would have had to have known: 1) GLS's proposed transition approach and 2)
   that the agency would conclude it "had no way of dealing with" the
   offerors' materially different approaches. Here, we need not resolve the
   timeliness issue in light of our conclusions, discussed above, that the
   agency's evaluations with regard to fill rate and experience, the two most
   heavily-weighted evaluation subfactors, were unsupported by the record and
   inconsistent with the stated evaluation criteria.