MorphoTrust USA, LLC

Case: B-412711 Agency: Department of Homeland Security : Transportation Security Administration Protester: MorphoTrust USA, LLC Date: 2016-05-16 Denied
View full decision with AI analysis on ProtestIntel →
B-412711 May 16, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights MorphoTrust USA, LLC, of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HSTS02-16-R-OIA011, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), for the award of "other transaction" agreements in support of the TSA Pre ✓ ® Application Expansion Initiative. MorphoTrust argues the solicited services must be acquired using a procurement contract; the protester also alleges that the solicitation is ambiguous and defective in certain regards. 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:  MorphoTrust USA, LLC File:  B-412711 Date:  May 16, 2016 Kevin P. Mullen, Esq., Damien C. Specht, Esq., and R. Locke Bell, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, and Charles L. Capito, Esq., Jenner & Block LLP, for the protester. Virginia G. Farrier, Esq., Christopher J. Reames, Esq., and Angela M. Varner, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Agency, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Noah B. Bleicher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s contention that the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is improperly using its “other transactions” authority--rather than a procurement contract--to enter into agreements with entities to develop innovations for the TSA Pre✓® Application Expansion Initiative is denied where TSA has statutory authority to enter into “other transactions” and the protester has not shown that TSA’s use of this authority is inconsistent with TSA’s statute. DECISION MorphoTrust USA, LLC, of Washington, District of Columbia, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. HSTS02-16-R-OIA011, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation Security Agency (TSA), for the award of “other transaction” agreements in support of the TSA Pre✓® Application Expansion Initiative.[1]  MorphoTrust argues the solicited services must be acquired using a procurement contract; the protester also alleges that the solicitation is ambiguous and defective in certain regards. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND In the aftermath of the terrorist hijackings and crashes of passenger aircraft on September 11, 2001, the Congress passed, and the President signed, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Pub. L. No. 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 et seq. (2001), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 114.  The ATSA established TSA as a new agency, originally within the Department of Transportation (DOT) and then subsequently within DHS, and tasked it with security responsibilities for all modes of transportation overseen by DOT and other related activities.  As part of its mission to ensure aviation security, TSA was made responsible for passenger security, including security screening at various security checkpoints throughout commercial airports.  To fulfill this mission, TSA thereafter hired and deployed security screeners, security managers, law enforcement officers, and intelligence and support personnel to screen all passengers and property at the nation’s domestic airports (see Resource Consultants, Inc., B-290163, B-290163.2, June 7, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 94 for additional details). Relevant to the protest here, the ATSA also specified TSA’s authority to conduct aviation passenger security prescreening as follows: In general.  The Under Secretary of Transportation for Security may take the following actions: *  *  *  *  *   (3) Establish requirements to implement trusted passenger programs and use available technologies to expedite the security screening of passengers who participate in such programs, thereby allowing security screening personnel to focus on those passengers who should be subject to more extensive screening. 49 U.S.C.

Full decision text continues on ProtestIntel...