Western Alternative Corrections, Inc.

B-412326 Jan 19, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Western Alternative Corrections, Inc. (WAC), of Hastings, Nebraska, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1306-CS for Residential Reentry Center (RRC) services located in Western Nebraska. The protester argues that Dismas' proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because it failed to provide certain information required by the solicitation, concerning valid proof of zoning, local area concerns, and an environmental checklist. 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:  Western Alternative Corrections, Inc. File:  B-412326  Date:  January 19, 2016 Hal J. Perloff, Esq., and Thomas Rath, Esq., Husch Blackwell LLP, for the protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., and David B. Dixon, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, for Dismas Charities, Inc., the intervenor. William D. Robinson, Esq., and Nihar Vora, Esq., Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency unreasonably found the awardee’s proposal technically acceptable is denied where record shows that agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.  DECISION Western Alternative Corrections, Inc. (WAC), of Hastings, Nebraska, protests the award of a contract by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), to Dismas Charities, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1306-CS for Residential Reentry Center (RRC) services located in Western Nebraska.  The protester argues that Dismas’ proposal should have been rejected as unacceptable because it failed to provide certain information required by the solicitation, concerning valid proof of zoning, local area concerns, and an environmental checklist. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation here seeks to obtain RRC services for Western Nebraska.  RRC contractors provide services, including employment and residence development, as well as other self-improvement opportunities, to assist federal offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) (Nov. 9, 2015), at 1.  Contractors are required to furnish all personnel, management, equipment, supplies, and services necessary to operate a RRC.  Id.  On April 29, 2013, the BOP issued solicitation No. RFP-200-1210-WS (the 2013 RFP) for the procurement of RRC services in Western Nebraska; WAC was the incumbent contractor for these services.  Agency Report (AR) at 2.  The 2013 RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, fixed‑price requirements contract with a base period of 2 years and three 1‑year options.  On August 22, 2014, the agency made award to Dismas and a protest from WAC followed.  Id. at 2.  The agency advised our Office that it would to take corrective action in response to the protest and we dismissed the protest as academic on September 18.[1]  Id.  In order to ensure continued RRC services during the corrective action, the agency awarded a contract to WAC to bridge the period from November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.  Id.; COS (Nov. 9, 2015), at 1.  The agency concluded that it would not complete the corrective action for the award under the 2013 RFP prior to the expiration of the first contract.  The agency issued the RFP at issue here on July 13, 2015. The RFP contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, requirements contract for a 4‑month base period with four 2-month options.  RFP at 34.[2]  The solicitation provided that the proposals would be evaluated on the basis of three evaluation factors:  (1) technical/management, (2) past performance, (3) and price.  Id. at 39.  The RFP provided that the technical/management factor was comprised of the following subfactors:  (1) site location, (2) accountability, (3) programs, and (4) facility and personnel; the site location subfactor had two additional elements:  (1) site validity and suitability, and (2) community relations program.  Id.  Firms were advised that the two non-price evaluation factors would be evaluated on a pass-fail basis, and that award would be made to the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal.  Id.