Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC

B-412755 Mar 25, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Aegis Defense Services, LLC (Aegis), of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Chenega-Patriot Group, LLC (CPG), of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA-15-R-0282, which was issued by the United States Department of State for protective security services to support the agency's global protective and security mission. Aegis alleges that the agency unreasonably awarded the contract to CPG after inadequately or incompletely investigating alleged violations of the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) on the part of CPG. We dismiss the protest. We dismiss 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:  Aegis Defense Services, LLC File:  B-412755 Date:  March 25, 2016 J. Scott Hommer, III, Esq., Keir X. Bancroft, Esq., Randall K. Miller, Esq., Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Michael T. Francel, Esq., Venable LLP, for the protester. Thomas G. Ward, Esq., C. Bryan Wilson, Esq., Lucas E. Beirne, Esq., and Shaun P. Mahaffy, Esq., Williams & Connolly, LLP; William K. Walker, Esq., Walker Reausaw; James H. Lister, Esq., Zacharia Olson, Esq., and Adam W. Cook, Esq., Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot; and Daniel S. Ward, Esq., Ward & Ward, PLLC, for the intervenor, Chenega-Patriot Group, LLC. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Elizabeth Witwer, Esq., and Jennifer Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging award under a multiple award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite‑quantity contract is dismissed where the protester is also an awardee and has not established that it is an interested party to protest. DECISION Aegis Defense Services, LLC (Aegis), of McLean, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Chenega-Patriot Group, LLC (CPG), of Chantilly, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. SAQMMA-15-R-0282, which was issued by the United States Department of State for protective security services to support the agency’s global protective and security mission.  Aegis alleges that the agency unreasonably awarded the contract to CPG after inadequately or incompletely investigating alleged violations of the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA) on the part of CPG.  We dismiss the protest. The RFP, issued on May 15, 2015, contemplated the award of multiple IDIQ contracts, referred to as the Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) 2 contracts.  RFP § B.2.  Both Aegis and CPG were among the seven offerors that received an award of a WPS 2 IDIQ contract.  Protest at 2; Contracting Officer’s Statement, Feb. 24, 2016, at 4.  In its protest, Aegis alleges that CPG improperly used Aegis’s confidential, proprietary and trade secret information to secure an award.  Protest at 2-3.  Specifically, Aegis alleges that one of Aegis’s former employees misappropriated Aegis’s information and used that information to aid CPG in the development of its proposal in response to the WPS 2 RFP.  Id. On June 26, Aegis notified the contracting officer of CPG’s potential violation of the PIA and requested that the agency investigate the matter and take necessary remedial action.  Protest at 6; Contracting Officer’s Statement at 5.  The contracting officer represents that he conducted an investigation into Aegis’s allegations and concluded that “there is no basis [to] determine a PIA violation has occurred.” Contracting Officer’s Statement at 6, 9.  On February 18, 2016, Aegis filed the subject protest challenging the sufficiency of the agency’s investigation. On February 24, the agency requested dismissal of the protest, alleging that Aegis had failed to assert or demonstrate that it was competitively harmed, as required to support a challenge to an award based upon an allegation of a PIA violation.  Agency Req. for Dismissal, Feb. 24, 2016.  On February 25, our Office declined to dismiss the protest on the grounds asserted by the agency, but asked the protester to address whether, as an awardee under a multiple-award IDIQ contract, it possesses the requisite direct economic interest to pursue a protest against an award to another contractor. Before Aegis could respond to our inquiry, however, CPG filed a request for dismissal based upon four independent grounds: (1) Aegis, as an awardee, is not an interested party; (2) Aegis’s complaints are the subject of ongoing litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) Aegis’s complaints have already been decided on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; and (4) Aegis’s protest is untimely.  CPG Req. for Dismissal, Feb.