B-297825, Allied Protection Services, Inc., March 23, 2006

B-297825 Mar 23, 2006 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Allied Protection Services, Inc. (APS) protests as unduly restrictive the requirement that offerors have a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals, and the refusal of the agency to sponsor potential offerors for that security clearance, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0034-06-R-1005, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, Acquisition and Procurement Office, for guard services for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA). APS argues that the clearance requirement effectively eliminates APS from competition and asserts that offerors without a clearance should be permitted to submit proposals, with the agency then sponsoring the awardees for the required clearance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-297825, Allied Protection Services, Inc., March 23, 2006 Decision Matter of: Allied Protection Services, Inc. File: B-297825 Date: March 23, 2006 Richard D. Lieberman, Esq., McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., for the protester. Janet N. Repka, Esq., and Andrew Bramnick, Esq., Department of Defense, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation requirement that offerors have a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals, and agency's decision that it will not sponsor potential offerors for the required security clearance, do not unduly restrict competition where the record shows that the requirement and the agency's decision not to sponsor are reasonably related to the agency's need to ensure that contract performance begins as scheduled. DECISION Allied Protection Services, Inc. (APS) protests as unduly restrictive the requirement that offerors have a secret facility clearance prior to the due date for proposals, and the refusal of the agency to sponsor potential offerors for that security clearance, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HQ0034-06-R-1005, issued by the Department of Defense (DOD), Washington Headquarters Services, Acquisition and Procurement Office, for guard services for the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA). APS argues that the clearance requirement effectively eliminates APS from competition and asserts that offerors without a clearance should be permitted to submit proposals, with the agency then sponsoring the awardees for the required clearance. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on December 21, 2005, anticipates the award of up to five contracts to provide force protection, security, and law enforcement for DOD activities in the National Capitol Region. According to the agency, the RFP contains standards and security requirements more strenuous than those under the existing contract, reflecting the increased security needs at the Pentagon and other DOD facilities following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. As relevant here, the RFP provides as follows: The contractor shall hold, at a minimum, an interim secret facility clearance as granted by [the District Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO)] prior to the RFP closing date. PFPA will not sponsor offerors for DISCO Security Clearances. Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, RFP at 60. The facility clearance referred to is an administrative determination that a facility is eligible for access to classified information or award of a classified contract. See National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, AR, Tab10, sect. 2-100. The firm seeking a facility clearance must be sponsored by the government or a currently cleared contractor, id. sect. 2-102; as stated in the RFP, the agency here will not sponsor potential offerors for the facility clearance. In order to implement the new, heightened security standards as soon as possible, the RFP provided for a 30-day transition period immediately after contract award, after which performance would begin. AR, Tab 12, RFP amend. 1, at 2. The agency received 16 offers by closing time on January 18, 2006. APS argues that the solicitation's facility clearance requirement, coupled with the agency's refusal to sponsor offerors, unduly restricts competition.[1] APS contends that the agency should permit offerors without an existing clearance to submit proposals and agree to sponsor the awardees for the required clearance.