Ridoc Enterprise, Inc., B-292962.4, July 6, 2004

B-292962.4 Jul 06, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ridoc Enterprise, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to C.R.B. Associates of Virginia, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DTCG84-03-Q-AA5063, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, for armed security guard and fire communications operator services at the Coast Guard Service Center, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Ridoc principally challenges the agency's evaluation of its and C.R.B.'s quotations. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292962.4, Ridoc Enterprise, Inc., July 6, 2004 Decision Matter of: Ridoc Enterprise, Inc. File: B-292962.4 Date: July 6, 2004 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Nolan Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. David J. Taylor, Esq., Tighe Patton Armstrong Teasdale, for C.R.B. Associates of Virginia, Inc., an intervenor. Audrey Roh, Esq., Department of Homeland Security-U.S. Coast Guard, for the agency. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protesters quotation is denied where record shows that evaluation was reasonable and consistent with stated evaluation criteria, and protesters contentions amount to disagreement with the evaluation. 2. Protester is not interested party for purposes of challenging awardees entitlement to award where record shows that, even if protester were correct, intervening vendor, not protester, would be next in line for award. DECISION Ridoc Enterprise, Inc. protests the issuance of a purchase order to C.R.B. Associates of Virginia, Inc. under request for quotations (RFQ) No. DTCG84-03-Q-AA5063, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, for armed security guard and fire communications operator services at the Coast Guard Service Center, Elizabeth City, North Carolina. Ridoc principally challenges the agencys evaluation of its and C.R.B.s quotations. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued August 13, 2003 as a section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price purchase order for a base year, with four 1-year options. The RFQ included a detailed performance work statement (PWS) outlining the contractors responsibilities, including, for example, training, key control, emergency procedures, standard operating procedures, duties of the main gate, back gate, and roving security guards, duties of the watch commander, and the watch routine. The PWS also outlined the duties of the fire communications operator, provided a list of deliverables to be submitted by the contractor with required due dates, and listed personnel and quality control requirements. The RFQ provided for a best value award based on price and the following equallyweighted evaluation factors: corporate experience/management capability, technical plan, quality control plan (QCP), training plan, personnel qualifications, and past performance. These factors combined were significantly more important than price. The RFQ reserved the agencys right to make award on the basis of initial quotations. The agency received 10 quotations, including those of Ridoc (with subcontractor Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc.) and C.R.B. (with subcontractors Top Guard Security and End to End Technical Services), by the September 2, 2003 closing date. The agency evaluated C.R.B.s quotation as the best value and notified vendors of its decision to issue a purchase order to C.R.B. Ridoc challenged the award in a series of protests (B-292962, B-292962.2, and B-292962.3). Following an outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution session conducted by our Office, the agency determined to take corrective action by reevaluating quotations. On reevaluation, Ridocs quotation received an overall technical rating of unsatisfactory, with marginal ratings under the technical plan and corporate experience/management capability factors, an unsatisfactory rating under the QCP factor, a satisfactory rating under the training factor, a good rating under the personnel qualifications factor, and a satisfactory rating for past performance. [1] C.R.B.s quotation received an overall rating of good, with excellent ratings under the QCP and training factors; good ratings under the corporate experience/management capability, technical plan and personnel qualifications factors; and a very good rating for past performance. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Memo for Award, at 9-10. Based on their unsatisfactory rating, Ridocs and seven other vendors quotations were eliminated from award consideration as technically unacceptable. Id. at 10. Of the two remaining quotations, C.R.B.s was determined to be the best value. Id. Ridoc challenges virtually all of the agencys reasons for rejecting its quotation.