The solicitation sought services in a foreign country. The awardee’s proposed prices were in the foreign country’s currency. The agency converted the awardee’s prices to U.S. dollars for the evaluation but didn’t convert prices the protester proposed in foreign currency. How was this not unequal treatment? The solicitation required the agency to convert an offer received in foreign currency to dollars. GAO, however, found that the protester had not submitted an offer in foreign currency. The protester had listed prices in dollars and in foreign currency. But the protester had also stated that it wanted to be paid in U.S. dollars. The agency reasonably interpreted this as an offer in dollars and thus did not have to convert prices the protester proposed in foreign currency.
CGS-SSG Joint Venture, GAO B-420397, B-420397.2
Background
The State Department issued an RFP for local guard services at the U.S. Embassy in Eswatini. The RFP stated that foreign firms had to submit their offers in the local Eswatini currency (Lilangeni), but that U.S. firms could submit offers in either U.S. dollars or the local currency.
The evaluation came down to two offerors: Max Enterprises, and CGS-SSG joint venture. Max, a foreign firm, had submitted its offer in the local currency. CGS, a U.S. firm, had submitted its offer in both U.S. dollars and the local currency. But CGS had requested to be paid in U.S. currency, so the agency evaluated its proposal in terms of dollars. Instead, to assess proposals against each other, the agency converted Max’s prices to U.S. dollars. Once converted, Max had the lower price and thus received the award.
CGS protested, alleging the State Department erred when it evaluated its prices in U.S. dollars instead of converting the company’s prices to the local currency. Thus, CGS reasoned, the agency evaluated proposals on an unequal basis.
Legal Analysis
- CGS Requested to Be Paid in Dollars – CGS argued that the agency should not have understood that its proposal was priced in dollars. While the RFP required U.S. firms to make a definitive statement affirming that they wanted to be paid in dollars, CGS contended that asking to be paid in dollars is different than proposing in dollars. GAO disagreed. The RFP only required U.S. firms to make the definitive statement about dollars. CGS had stated it wanted to be paid dollars. The agency concluded from this that CGS's price should be evaluated in dollars. Indeed, the agency advised CGS during discussions that it understood the offer to be in dollars, and CGS had not corrected the agency.
- FAR Didn’t Require Agency to Convert CGS’s Prices to Local Currency – The RFP incorporated FAR 52.225-17, which states that if an agency receives offers in more than one currency, it will evaluate offers by converting foreign currency to U.S. dollars. CGS argued that because its proposal contained both currencies, the State Department should have converted its local currency prices to U.S. dollars. But GAO reasoned that CGS had already submitted prices in dollars; indeed, the company’s total price for evaluation was in dollars. The agency was not required to convert CGS’s local currency prices because the company had not made a local currency offer.
- No Disparate Evaluation – CGS alleged the agency unequally evaluated proposals because it did not use the same exchange rates. CGS’s U.S. dollar prices had been based on exchange rates in effect when it submitted its initial proposal, but the conversion of Max's prices had been based on rates in effect at the time of final proposal submissions. GAO didn’t see this as problematic. The RFP expressly stated that all non-dollar offers would be converted as of the date of final proposal revisions. The agency acted in accordance with the terms of the RFP.
CGS is represented by Robert Nichols and Andrews Victor of Nichols Liu LLP. The intervenor, Max Enterprises, is represented by H. Todd Whay or Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP. The agency is represented by John W. Cox of the Department of State. GAO attorneys Michael P. Price and Jonathan L. Kang participated in the preparation of the decision.