RightFramePhotoVideo | Shutterstock

Protest challenging agency’s evaluation is denied. The solicitation contemplated four awards for four geographical regions. The protester argued that the agency disparately evaluated proposals because a technical evaluation panel for one region had not assigned the same strength as a panel for another region. To the extent this was an error, the court found that the protester had not been prejudiced because the additional strengths would not have changed anything; the protester had already received the highest technical ratings in every region. The protester also argued that the agency had not adequately explained the basis for award. But the court opined that the SSA had analyzed the differences between proposals and sufficiently explained the award.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) issued a Request for Quotation seeking linguistic services. The RFQ contemplated the award of blanket purchase agreements for four different geographical regions in the U.S.

MVM, Inc. and Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (Metro) both submitted quotes for each of the four regions. DEA awarded Metro a BPA for Region IV. MVM filed an agency-level protest challenging the award. DEA denied the protest, informing MVM that its pricing presented a higher degree of risk of not being able to find linguists.

Following MVM’s agency protest, DEA asked offerors to submit refreshed quotes for Regions I, II, and III. MVM submitted a refreshed quote, which increased its pricing. After evaluating the new quotes, DEA awarded the Region I BPA to MVM and the Region II and III BPAs to Metro. Both MVM and Metro filed GAO protests. In response to the protests, DEA took corrective action to re-evaluate quotes.

DEA reevaluated and found that both MVM and Metro had the highest technical ratings for each of the remaining regions. But DEA awarded the Region I, II, and III BPAs to Metro due to the company’s lower price.. MVM filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims. Metro intervened. All the parties moved for judgment on the administrative record.

MVM first argued that DEA disparately evaluated quotes because the technical evaluation panels for Regions II and III did not assign the same strengths to MVM, or the same weaknesses to Metro, as were assigned by the panel for Region I. The court found that even if MVM could demonstrate that DEA erred by not assigning the same strengths and weaknesses to each Region, MVM could not show it had been prejudiced by the error. MVM received the highest possible rating under every factor in Regions I, II, and III. Assigning additional strengths in Regions II and III would not have increased its overall technical rating.

What’s more, the court reasoned, the failure to assign the same strengths to each Region was not an error. The RFQ stated that different technical evaluation panels would evaluate quotes for each region. It was therefore reasonable, and consistent with the RFQ, that the panel for each Region would reach different business judgments and conclusions regarding the merits of MVM’s proposal.

Next, MVM contended that DEA had failed to adequately explain why it awarded MVM the Region I BPA after the initial evaluation but then awarded it to Metro after the reevaluation. The court noted that there was no requirement in the RFQ to for DEA to provide such an explanation. In any event, the record showed that the SSA had separately analyzed each proposal and reasonably concluded that there nothing to justify a higher-cost award to MVM.

MVM further contended that DEA breached an implied duty to fairly consider MVM’s quote by misleading MVM with respect to pricing. MVM claimed that it had been misled by the agency protest decision in which DEA stated that MVM’s price presented a high degree of risk, which caused the company to increase its prices. The court found this argument lacked merit. The DEA may have told MVM that its price created risk, but it never stated that MVM’s price was unrealistic.

Finally, MVM claimed that the best value analysis was flawed because DEA minimized technical differences between quotes and failed to consider weaknesses in Metro’s quote. The court rejected this argument, finding that SSA had specifically addressed the technical differences between proposals and the weaknesses in Metro’s quote.

MVM is represented by Meghan F. Leemon, Isaias Alba, IV, Lauren R. Brier, and Timothy F. Valley of PilieroMazza PLLC. The intervenor, Metro, is represented by Holly A. Roth, Liza V. Craig, William T. Kirkwood, Nicholas V. Albu, Louise Zwicker, and Francisca M. Mok of Reed Smith LLP. The government is represented by Miles K. Karson, Douglas K. Mickle, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., and Joseph H. Hunt of the Department of Justice as well as James Hicks of the Drug Enforcement Agency.