B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Spectrum Security Services, Inc., December 29, 2005

B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Spectrum Security Services, Inc., December 29, 2005 TITLE: B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Spectrum Security Services, Inc., December 29, 2005 BNUMBER: B-297320.2; B-297320.3 DATE: December 29, 2005 *************************************************************************** B-297320.2; B-297320.3, Spectrum Security Services, Inc., December 29, 2005 Decision Matter of: Spectrum Security Services, Inc. File: B-297320.2; B-297320.3 Date: December 29, 2005 Timothy H. Power, Esq., for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., and Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter & Allen, PLC, for Ahuska Security Corporation, the intervenor. Aaron T. Marshall, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., and John W. Klein, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where an agency fails to provide pre-award notification of the identity of the prospective awardee on a small business set-aside and the awardee is ultimately found by the Small Business Administration to be other than small based upon a timely size protest filed after award, the agency should terminate the contract and obtain the services from a small business offeror. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal, on its face, shows that the awardee would not comply with the solicitation's subcontracting limitation is denied, where the solicitation for services provided for the evaluation of base and option requirements and the awardee proposed to perform more than 50 percent of the personnel costs of the contract, considering the entire contract period. 3. Protest that agency improperly considered the corporate experience and past performance of awardee's proposed subcontractor is denied, where the solicitation encouraged offerors to submit such information. DECISION Spectrum Security Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Ahuska Security Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCEOP-05-R-00001, issued as a small business set-aside by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Department of Homeland Security, for detention officer and transportation services. Spectrum complains that, as found by the Small Business Administration (SBA), Ahuska is not a small business concern for this procurement.[1] Spectrum also challenges the evaluation of Ahuska's proposal. We sustain the protest in part and deny it in part. The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for the provision of detention officer and transportation services for a base and 4 option years. Offerors were informed that to satisfy the agency's responsibility for "the detention, health, welfare, transportation and deportation of immigrants in removal proceedings and immigrants subject to final order of removal," a contractor was sought to provide uniformed detention officers on a 24-hour per day, 7-day per week basis. RFP, Statement of Work, at 6. The RFP incorporated by reference the standard "Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside" clause, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.219-6, and "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause, FAR sect. 52.219-14. Thus, offerors were informed that the procurement was set aside exclusively for small business concerns and that, with respect to the limitations on subcontracting, "[a]t least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern." FAR sect. 52-219-14(b)(1). Offerors were informed that award would be made on a "best value" basis, considering the following factors: (1) corporate experience, (2) past performance, (3) contractor's work plan, (4) personnel, (5) training, (6) transportation, and (7) price. Offerors were also informed that factors (1) through (4) were of equal importance and were slightly more important than factors (5) and (6), which were identified as being equal in importance to each other. All of the technical factors, when combined, were stated to be slightly more important than price. RFP at 77. The solicitation also incorporated by reference the standard "Evaluation of Options" clause, FAR sect. 52.217-5, which informed offerors that the agency would evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The agency received offers from three firms, including Spectrum and Ahuska.