XYZ Corporation

B-413243.2 Oct 18, 2016 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights XYZ Corporation protests the corrective action being taken by the Central Intelligence Agency, under request for proposals (RFP) No. B15-2014295G001 for security services. XYZ argues that the agency's refusal to disqualify ABC from the competition results in a failure to address the errors identified by the agency. 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:  XYZ Corporation File:  B-413243.2 Date:  October 18, 2016 David C. Hammond, Esq., Mark A. Ries, Esq., Jonathan M. Baker, Esq., and Olivia L. Lynch, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Emma K. Dinan, Esq., and Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Arnold & Porter LLP, for ABC Corporation, the intervenor. Cristina Almodovar, Esq., and Arthur L. Passar, Esq., Central Intelligence Agency, for the agency. K. Nicole Willems, Esq., and Kenneth E. Patton, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of corrective action is denied where the agency’s decision to reopen discussions, solicit new final proposals, reevaluate offers, and make a new source selection decision is appropriate to resolve evaluation errors identified by the agency. DECISION XYZ Corporation protests the corrective action being taken by the Central Intelligence Agency, under request for proposals (RFP) No. B15-2014295G001 for security services.  XYZ argues that the agency’s refusal to disqualify ABC from the competition results in a failure to address the errors identified by the agency.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which the agency released on June 4, 2015, contemplated award to the contractor who could perform “in a manner most advantageous to the [g]overnment, cost/price and other items considered.” [2]  Initial Protest at 4.  The solicitation identified the items to be considered, and advised offerors that, as relevant here, the agency would evaluate each offeror’s technical/management approach, including information related to personnel qualifications and availability.  Id. at 5.  Specifically, the RFP provided for an evaluation of the extent to which proposed personnel (key and non‑key) had the skill, experience, and other qualifications appropriate for the work described in the statement of work.  Id.  In this regard, offerors were required to “submit information on the [proposed program manager’s (PPM’s)] capabilities, educational background, current clearances, experience, qualifications and any other relevant information,” and to submit resumes for all key personnel candidates, including the PPM.  Protester’s Comments at 10-11.  Initial proposals were due on June 19.  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement, at 1.  After evaluating initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range, which included XYZ and ABC, and conducted discussions, which were completed on March 14, 2016.  Id.  The agency received final proposal revisions on March 28.  Id.  On May 16, the agency notified the protester that it had not been chosen for award.  Initial Protest at 9.  The agency provided XYZ an oral debriefing on June 2, and the protester filed a protest with our office on June 7.  Id.  In its protest, XYZ argued that ABC had misrepresented the availability of its PPM, and requested that ABC be disqualified from the competition.  XYZ also challenged the agency’s evaluation of price.[3] Subsequent to the filing of XYZ’s protest, the agency advised our Office that it intended to take corrective action.  Notice of Corrective Action, July 1, 2016, at 1. Specifically, the agency represented that it would rescind the award to ABC; reopen discussions with both ABC and XYZ; solicit new final proposal revisions; reevaluate the technical/management (including personnel qualifications and availability), past performance, and pricing elements of both offerors’ proposals; and make a new award decision.  Id.  The agency also indicated that it would assign several new evaluators to the evaluation teams, including a new CO and contracting officer’s technical representative.  Id. at 2.  In its corrective action notice, the agency noted that it had identified errors in its evaluation of price realism, past performance, and performance risk, and also conceded that the evaluation was flawed due to the alleged misrepresentation of the availability of ABC’s PPM.  Id.