FCi Federal, Inc.

B-408558 Nov 08, 2013 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CMI Management, Inc. (CMI), of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS), decision to exclude CMI's proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSCCG-13-R-00002, for field office support services. CMI asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision 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: CMI Management, Inc. File: B-408558 Date: November 8, 2013 Jerry A. Esq., Deale Services, LLC, for the protester. Claude P. Goddard, Esq., Polsinelli PC, for FCi Federal, Inc., an intervenor. Barbara Walthers, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Frank Maguire, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Agency reasonably downgraded protester’s technical proposal where proposal to furnish support services failed to satisfy solicitation requirements that offerors (1) describe the methods to be used to maintain daily operations at agency sites, and (2) justify what levels of staffing and skill mix would be necessary and appropriate to fulfill the performance work statement requirements. 2. Agency reasonably downgraded protester’s proposal under small business subcontracting factor where the discrepancies and errors in the proposal with regard to the use of subcontractors were such that the agency could not determine how proposed subcontractor goals were derived or whether offeror clearly committed to meeting the required small business subcontracting goal. DECISION CMI Management, Inc. (CMI), of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS), decision to exclude CMI’s proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSSCCG-13-R-00002, for field office support services. CMI asserts that the agency unreasonably evaluated its proposal. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The field office support services (FOSS) contract will provide support to the USCIS Field Operation Directorate and the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate at offices throughout the United States. Tasks under the contract include correspondence management, file operations and maintenance, data reviews and updates, interview scheduling, certificate production, ceremony support, interview preparation (organizing casework), and file retirement at the San Bruno Federal Records Center in California. RFP § I.B, Performance Work Statement (PWS); Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The current prime contractor for this requirement is FCi Federal, Inc. (FCi). CMI was the prior incumbent contractor providing field office support under the records support services contract, which ended more than three years ago (March 2010). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the “best value” considering the following four evaluation factors (in descending order of importance): (1) management capability, with subfactors for operational approach, staffing, management approach, and relevant corporate experience; (2) small business subcontracting, with subfactors for maximization of small business opportunities, participation in the DHS mentor-protégé program, and small disadvantaged business participation program targets; (3) past performance; and (4) price. RFP at 118. The non-price factors when combined were significantly more important than price. Id. CMI and five other offerors submitted proposals. The contracting officer established a competitive range of the most highly-rated proposals, including only the proposals submitted by FCi and [Offeror A]. AR, Tab 15, Competitive Range Determination (CRD), at 3; see COS at 3. The proposals were evaluated in relevant part as follows: Offeror Management Capability Small Business Subcontracting Past Performance Evaluated Price CMI Acceptable Marginal Low Risk $233,057,116 FCi Good Outstanding Low Risk $227,068,333 Offeror A Outstanding Marginal Low Risk $245,840,886 CRD at 3. In her rationale for the competitive range determination, the contracting officer explained that FCi’s and [Offeror A’s] technical proposals “were the most highly rated,” having been rated good and outstanding, respectively, under management capability, the most important evaluation factor. Id. at 7.