Bannum Inc.

B-411586.2 Jan 06, 2016 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-1248-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, for residential re-entry center and home confinement services in Charleston, West Virginia. Bannum maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. 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:  Bannum Inc. File:  B-411586.2 Date:  January 6, 2016 Joseph A. Camardo Jr., Esq., Nancy M. Camardo, Esq., and Justin T. Huffman, Esq., Camardo Law Firm, PC, for the protester. Alex Tomaszczuk, Esq., and Meghan D. Doherty, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Dismas Charities, Inc., an intervenor. William Robinson, Esq., and Sarah Bloom, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging agency’s technical evaluation of proposals and source selection decision is dismissed where protester abandoned its substantive challenges to the agency’s evaluation of technical proposals. 2.  Protest that an agency did not properly consider the protester’s small business status when evaluating its proposal in a full and open competition is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. DECISION Bannum, Inc., of Odessa, Florida, protests the award of a contract to Dismas Charities, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 200-1248-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, for residential re-entry center and home confinement services in Charleston, West Virginia.  Bannum maintains that the agency misevaluated its proposal and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We dismiss the protest in part and deny it in part. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 7, 2014, contemplates award, on a best-value basis, of a fixed-price indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to provide residential re-entry center and home confinement services in Charleston, West Virginia for certain federal offenders serving the final months of their sentences, for a 2-year base period and 3 option years.  RFP at 3, 226-27.  Prior to issuing the RFP, the contracting officer (CO) conducted market research and determined that the agency was unlikely to receive responses from two or more small businesses.  CO Statement at 9; Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Small Business Set-Aside Memorandum.  The CO therefore did not issue the RFP as a small business set‑aside, but sought full and open competition. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated considering price and the following non-price factors:  past performance and technical/management, with past performance deemed more important than technical/management.  RFP at 226.  The technical/management factor was comprised of six subfactors, which, when combined, were considered to be significantly more important than price.[1]  Id. In response to the RFP, the agency received proposals from Bannum and Dismas.  CO Statement at 2.  The agency engaged in discussions and accepted final proposal revisions (FPRs).  After evaluating the FPRs, the agency made award to Dismas, finding that its proposal offered the best value to the government. After being advised of the source selection decision, and following a debriefing, Bannum filed a protest with our Office.  In response to the protest, the agency proposed to take corrective action by re-evaluating the proposals and making a new source selection decision.  CO Statement at 2.  Because the agency’s proposed corrective action rendered the protest academic, we dismissed the protest on July 2, 2015.  The agency subsequently re-evaluated proposals and prepared a new source selection decision.  The agency evaluated the proposals as follows:   Bannum Dismas Past Performance Very Good Exceptional Technical/Management Satisfactory Exceptional Risk Moderate Low Price $8,003,016.00 $7,840,087.20 CO Statement at 3-6. Once again, the agency concluded that Dismas should be awarded the contract.  After notification of award and a debriefing, Bannum filed the instant protest. DISCUSSION Abandoned Issues Bannum initially makes several arguments in connection with the agency’s re-evaluation of both its own proposal and the awardee’s proposal.  S...