Professional Security Corporation

B-410606 Jan 13, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Professional Security Corporation (PSC), of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, protests the decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to place a requirement for security guard services under the SBA's section 8(a) business development program through the award of contract No. 200-2014-59525 to Chenega Total Asset Protection LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC). PSC argues that the SBA failed to perform a required adverse impact determination. 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: Professional Security Corporation File: B-410606 Date: January 13, 2015 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., John S. Pachter, Esq., Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., and Elspeth A. England, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw, for Chenega Total Asset Protection LLC, the intervenor. Elise Harris, Esq., Department of Health and Human Services; and John W. Klein, Esq., and Sam Q. Le, Esq., U.S. Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Robert T. Wu, Esq., Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that Small Business Administration improperly failed to conduct adverse impact analysis when accepting requirement into the section 8(a) program is denied when such an analysis was not required under the circumstances. DECISION Professional Security Corporation (PSC), of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, protests the decision by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to place a requirement for security guard services under the SBA’s section 8(a) business development program through the award of contract No. 200-2014-59525 to Chenega Total Asset Protection LLC, of Anchorage, Alaska, an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC). PSC argues that the SBA failed to perform a required adverse impact determination. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND This protest involves the decision by the CDC and the SBA to place a requirement for security guard services at the CDC’s Atlanta, Georgia, and Fort Collins, Colorado, offices under the SBA’s section 8(a) business development program. The contract at issue was awarded to Chenega for a price of $71,125,166, consisting of one base period and four one-year option periods, utilizing other than competitive procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) §§ 6.302-5(a)(2)(i) and (b)(4), which exempt from full and open competition acquisitions made using the SBA’s authority under 15 U.S.C. § 637(a)(16). Agency Report (AR), exh. 9, Tab B, Award Decision Memorandum, at 1; Tab G, Justification for a Sole-Source 8(a) Contract over $20 million - CDC Atlanta & Fort Collins Security Guard Services (J&A), at 1. Historically, the Atlanta-area guard services requirement had been performed by a concern known as Metropolitan Security Service, Inc. d/b/a Walden Security, a large business, who performed these services since March of 2000. Protest at 5. In 2012, the CDC decided to set aside the Atlanta-area guard services requirement for small businesses, conducting the procurement as a competitive small business set aside. See Walden Security, B‑407022, B‑407022.2, Oct. 10, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 291. PSC ultimately received the contract award pursuant to that procurement with Walden proposed to serve as the firm’s subcontractor. Contracting Officer’s Statement at 2; Protest at 7. Subsequent to the contract award to PSC, a small business competitor for the requirement filed a size-status protest with the SBA. AR, exh. 11, Tab A, SBA Size Determination Memorandum, at 1. In responding to that protest, the SBA area office found that PSC was not a small business concern for purposes of the requirement because PSC was unduly reliant on Walden for performance of the contract, and that PSC was largely incapable of performing the requirement without Walden. Id. at 7. That decision was appealed by PSC to the SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), which affirmed the SBA area office’s determination that PSC was other than small for that contract. Size Appeal of Professional Security Corporation, SBA No. SIZ-5548 (2014). At the time of OHA’s ultimate disposition of the size protest, PSC and Walden had been performing the requirement under the original base-year of the contract.