B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 2007

B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 2007 TITLE: B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299496; B-299496.2 DATE: May 29, 2007 *********************************************************** B-299496; B-299496.2, Raymond Associates, LLC, May 29, 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: Raymond Associates, LLC File: B-299496; B-299496.2 Date: May 29, 2007 Scott M. Heimberg, Esq., Thomas P. McLish, Esq., Mark J. Groff, Esq., and Lauren R. Bates, Esq., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, for the protester. John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., and Kathryn T. Muldoon, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for Aegis Defence Services, Limited, an intervenor. LTC David Newsome, Jr., Department of the Army, 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 1. Protest that agency's source selection decision was based on improper averaging of evaluation ratings is denied where record shows that award decision was not based on ratings alone. 2. Protest that agency should have ranked protester's proposal more highly under technical evaluation factor due to its past performance as incumbent is denied where solicitation included separate past performance evaluation factor, and did not provide for considering past performance under technical factor. 3. Protest that agency improperly credited awardee's proposal with strength for a [DELTED] is denied where [DELETED] was reasonably related to stated evaluation factors. DECISION Raymond Associates, LLC protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to Aegis Defence Services, Limited under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91GYO-07-R-0007, for personal security services in support of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq. Raymond challenges the Army's evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on November 14, 2006, contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a 6-month base period, with three 6-month options, to provide personal security details for up to 5 principals in Iraq. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal representing the "best value" to the Army, as determined under three evaluation factors: past performance, technical capability, and price. Past performance was significantly more important than technical capability, and the two combined were significantly more important than price. RFP at 41. Offerors were required to submit proposals in three volumes, one corresponding to each of the evaluation factors. RFP at 38. The past performance volume was to include information regarding five references, the technical capability volume was to address five specific areas: simultaneous high-quality security and force protection; work plan and mobilization; key personnel and manning; security clearances; and stability continuity and reliability;[1] and the price volume was to include line item pricing. RFP at 38-40. Proposals were to receive adjectival ratings (exceptional, good, satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory) under the past performance and technical capability factors. The agency received 13 proposals. After rejecting 1 proposal as late, the Army evaluated the remaining 12, including Raymond's and Aegis's.