B-297282, M&M Ret. Enterprises, LLC, December 15, 2005

B-297282 Dec 15, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights M&M Ret. Enterprises, LLC protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to TD Support Services (TDSS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-05-R-0013, for facilities management and information technology activity security support services at Mountain Home Air Force Base. M&M primarily argues that the Air Force should have found the awardee's proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297282, M&M Ret. Enterprises, LLC, December 15, 2005 Decision Matter of: M&M Ret. Enterprises, LLC File: B-297282 Date: December 15, 2005 Dale F. Meeks for the protester. Pamela A. Dugger, Esq., and Eric Kattner, Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency should have rejected awardee's proposal as technically unacceptable for failure of the company's owners/management personnel to hold allegedly required security clearances is denied, where solicitation did not expressly require clearances for those personnel, and there is no basis to conclude that contract work cannot be performed as required without those additional clearances. DECISION M&M Ret. Enterprises, LLC protests the Department of the Air Force's award of a contract to TD Support Services (TDSS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4897-05-R-0013, for facilities management and information technology activity security support services at Mountain Home Air Force Base.[1] M&M primarily argues that the Air Force should have found the awardee's proposal technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The RFP, which was set aside for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a period of 1 months, with four 1-year option periods. The solicitation stated that the Air Force would select, from among the technically acceptable proposals, the proposal that represented the –best value— to the government, with price and past performance as the two equally-weighted evaluation factors. Technically acceptable proposals were defined as those evidencing the firm's ability to understand and satisfy the requirements. RFP at 17. The RFP included a requirement that all contract personnel have secret security clearances, and, in order to allow the Air Force to verify the clearances, offerors were required to submit a list of personnel names and social security numbers with the proposal. Id. The agency received six proposals that it deemed to be technically acceptable, including M&M's and TDSS's. The Air Force evaluated the proposals and gave M&M, a recently formed company consisting of the two individuals who had been performing the work at issue for the incumbent contractor, a past performance rating of satisfactory/some confidence. The agency reasoned that this rating reflected both the two individuals' lack of experience managing a company, and the exceptional past performance ratings they received for their work. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Proposal Evaluation Report, at 6. The Air Force gave TDSS a past performance rating of neutral/unknown confidence based on the firm's lack of relevant past performance. In this respect, although TDSS had submitted past performance information for four contracts, the Air Force determined that these contracts were not relevant to the requirement here. Id. at 7. The agency also concluded that TDSS had met the security clearance requirement by submitting the names of two individuals who had the appropriate clearances. Id.The Air Force subsequently determined that TDSS's lower-priced proposal ($471,073, compared to M&M's price of $626,667) offered the best value to the government, and made award to that firm. M&M principally argues that the agency should have found TDSS's proposal technically unacceptable since, although TDSS's proposed personnel hold secret security clearances, TDSS's owner (or management personnel) lacks a secret security clearance.[2] M&M asserts that TDSS's owner was required to have this clearance because the solicitation stated that –all personnel supporting— the performance work statement (PWS) were to have such a clearance and, M&M asserts, various provisions in the PWS required the contractor's owner (or management) to support the contract. PWS sect. 1.3.