B-299088; B-299088.2, Alutiiq Global Solutions, February 6, 2007

B-299088; B-299088.2, Alutiiq Global Solutions, February 6, 2007 TITLE: B-299088; B-299088.2, Alutiiq Global Solutions, February 6, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299088; B-299088.2 DATE: February 6, 2007 **************************************************************** B-299088; B-299088.2, Alutiiq Global Solutions, February 6, 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: Alutiiq Global Solutions File: B-299088; B-299088.2 Date: February 6, 2007 John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Stephen D. Knight, Esq., Stephanie D. Capps, Esq., and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Frank C. Gulin, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for TW & Company, Inc.; David B. Dempsey, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig., Esq., and David J. Craig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Chenega Security & Protection Services, LLC; Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Michael J. Askew, Esq., and Emily A. Jones, Esq., Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, for Doyon Security Services, LLC, intervenors. Capt. Sean M. Connolly and Peter D. DiPaola, Esq., Department of Army, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is denied where there is no evidence that the contracting officer ignored relevant information in making affirmative determinations of responsibility regarding the awardees. 2. Protest allegation challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the alleged evaluation error did not result in competitive prejudice to protester. 3. Protester is not an interested party to challenge evaluation of awardee's proposal where record shows that another firm, not the protester, would be in line for award if protester's challenge were sustained, and protester does not challenge evaluation of the other firm's proposal. DECISION Alutiiq Global Solutions protests the award of contracts to TW & Company, Inc., Chenega Security & Protection Services, LLC (Chenega SPS), and Doyon Security Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SO-06-R-0019, issued by the Army Northern Region Contracting Center, Department of the Army, for security guard services. Alutiiq argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and source selection decision were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on July 21, 2006, as a section 8(a) set-aside,[1] contemplated the award of up to three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year with four 1-year options to provide security guard services in accordance with the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS) at various Army installations within three defined geographic regions--Northeast, West, and Pacific Coast. The RFP established six evaluation factors: mission capability; personnel; experience; past performance; small business participation; and price.[2] The solicitation informed offerors that the first four evaluation factors were of equal importance, and were more important than the small business participation and price evaluation factors. Additionally, all nonprice evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. RFP at 109. Contract award for each geographic region was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government based on consideration of all evaluation factors. Id. Fifteen offerors, including Alutiiq, TW, Chenega SPS, and Doyon, submitted proposals for one or more geographic regions by the August 11 closing date. Alutiiq, TW, and Chenega SPS proposed for all three regions, while Doyon proposed only for the Pacific Coast region.[3] An agency source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated offerors' technical proposals using the adjectival rating system set forth in the RFP. On August 25, the SSEB provided the source selection authority (SSA) with its evaluation ratings of offerors' technical proposals, Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, SSEB Technical Evaluation Report, and the SSA also received a separate evaluation of offerors' prices. Id., Tab 12, Price Evaluation Report.