B-298872.3, Frontier Systems Integrators, LLC, February 28, 2007

B-298872.3 Feb 28, 2007 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Frontier Systems Integrators, LLC protests the award of a contract to Chenega Security and Protection Services, LLC (CSPS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-06-R-1126, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for security guard services. Frontier argues that the Navy improperly evaluated CSPS's proposal. We deny the protest. View Decision B-298872.3, Frontier Systems Integrators, LLC, February 28, 2007 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Frontier Systems Integrators, LLC File: B-298872.3 Date: February 28, 2007 T. Michael Guiffr-, Esq., James N. Schwarz, Esq., and Elizabeth M. Gill, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for the protester. David B. Dempsey, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., David J. Craig, Esq., and Stuart W. Turner, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Chenega Security and Protection Services, LLC, an intervenor. Damon Martin, Esq., and David Nimmich, Esq., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably decided not to attribute to the awardee the past performance information of its parent company where awardee's proposal indicated that parent's role was limited to providing administrative support functions and reflected that it would have no role in performing the actual security guard functions required by the agency. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal should have been rated –unacceptable— for failing to comply with solicitation requirement that offerors submit –at least— three relevant past performance questionnaires is denied where past performance was evaluated according to a pass/fail evaluation scheme and was therefore ultimately a matter of responsibility and the protester did not challenge the agency's affirmative determination of responsibility with respect to the awardee. DECISION Frontier Systems Integrators, LLC protests the award of a contract to Chenega Security and Protection Services, LLC (CSPS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. N40085-06-R-1126, issued by the Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, for security guard services. Frontier argues that the Navy improperly evaluated CSPS's proposal. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued as a competitive set-aside under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, contemplated the award of a –combination firm-fixed price/indefinite quantity contract— for security guard and patrol services at the Naval Station Newport Complex, Newport, Rhode Island, with a 1-year base period of performance and four 1-year options. As amended, the RFP provided that –[t]he Government will select the lowest price technically acceptable offer whose proposed approach provides a high degree of confidence that the contractor is capable of meeting or exceeding the performance objectives and standards at a realistic and reasonable cost to the Government.— RFP at 55. Technical acceptability was to be determined with respect to three technical evaluation factors: (1) technical approach/management; (2) corporate experience; and (3) past performance.[1] As it relates to the protest issues raised, the corporate experience factor provided as follows: Offerors shall provide information on a maximum of twenty (20) guard/security services contracts completed within the past five years, including current (on-going) contracts. Contracts must be similar in size, scope, and complexity as the current requirement. Include a short description, contract number, title, location, and a list of clients and points of contact on individual contracts with accurate telephone numbers. Offerors may include past experience information regarding predecessor companies and key personnel who have relevant experience. RFP at 57. The past performance factor provided as follows: Offerors shall clearly demonstrate a history of performance on contracts of similar scope, size, and complexity to this requirement. The Government will consider any 1) information supplied by the offeror, 2) information obtained by references provided by the offeror, 3) other relevant past performance and experience obtained from other sources and date bases known to the Government.