CACI-ISS, Inc.

B-412074 Dec 21, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CACI-ISS, Inc. (CACI), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to PAE Professional Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912UM-15-R-0010, to provide construction security and surveillance services for secure construction projects in South Korea. CACI challenges various aspects of the agency's evaluation, including its identification of weaknesses in CACI's proposal, and asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. 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:  CACI-ISS, Inc. File:  B-412074 Date:  December 21, 2015 Christopher J. Kimball, Esq., Erin M. Estevez, Esq., Thomas O. Mason, Esq., and David E. Fletcher, Esq., Cooley LLP, for the protester. Robert Nichols, Esq., Covington & Burling LLP, for PAE Professional Services, Inc., an intervenor. Thomas J. Warren, Esq., and Paul L. Huhtanen, Esq., Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  In evaluating protester’s proposal to provide construction security and surveillance services, agency reasonably considered protester’s failure to adequately address emerging security requirements where solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria provided for the evaluation of an offeror’s plan for managing labor and other resources.  2.  Where protester’s proposal provided that subcontractors would perform a substantial portion of the solicitation requirements, the agency reasonably considered protester’s failure to provide sufficient information regarding its subcontractor relationships pursuant to the solicitation’s evaluation criteria that contemplated evaluation of an offeror’s organization and management plan. 3.  Agency was not required during discussions to direct protester’s attention to the prices proposed for individual line items where the protester’s total proposed price was considered fair and reasonable.  DECISION CACI-ISS, Inc. (CACI), of Chantilly, Virginia, protests the Department of the Army’s award of a contract to PAE Professional Services, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W912UM-15-R-0010, to provide construction security and surveillance services for secure construction projects in South Korea.  CACI challenges various aspects of the agency’s evaluation, including its identification of weaknesses in CACI’s proposal, and asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 6, 2015, the agency published the solicitation at issue, seeking proposals to provide security and surveillance services for secure construction projects throughout South Korea.[1]  The solicitation contemplated a fixed-price single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite‑quantity (IDIQ) contract for a two-year base period and a one-year option period, and included a performance work statement (PWS) for the first task order, which will be awarded with the IDIQ contract.  The solicitation provided for award on a best-value basis considering price and the following non‑price evaluation factors:  planning and scheduling, approach for delivery of task order 0001, past performance, organization and management plan, collaborative approach for delivery of services, and key personnel qualifications for task order 0001.[2] On June 19, initial proposals were submitted by three offerors, including CACI and PAE.[3]  Thereafter, the agency issued various solicitation amendments, conducted two rounds of discussions, and requested the submission of final revised proposals (FRPs).  On August 17, FRPs were submitted and were subsequently evaluated.[4] In evaluating CACI’s proposal, the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB) identified various strengths and weaknesses.  For example, under the scheduling and planning evaluation factor, the SSEB assigned a weakness to CACI’s proposal, stating: Offeror lacks plan for rapidly addressing emerging security requirements due to quick modifications or changes in risk mitigation techniques, which would impact manning resources and lead to deficits in security coverage for short durations. AR, Tab 5, SSEB Report, at 6. Additionally, in evaluating CACI’s proposal under the organization and management plan evaluation factor, the agency assessed weaknesses, stating: Offeror’s teaming arrangement is mentioned, but any established contracts or agreements are not described in detail.  The stability of the teaming relationship and its ability to provide contracted services for the entire ...