Walden Security

B-413523.10 Aug 31, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Walden Security, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, protests the award of two contracts to Paragon Systems, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJM-16-A32-R-0001, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), for court security officers (CSO) for three federal judicial circuits. The protester challenges the agency's past performance evaluation. 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:  Walden Security File:  B-413523.10 Date:  August 31, 2017 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Mary Pat Buckenmeyer, Esq., and Sean K. Griffin, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester. Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Scott F. Lane, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for Paragon Systems, Inc., the intervenor. C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest of agency’s evaluation of information provided by protester to address adverse past performance information to which the offeror was not previously given an opportunity to respond is denied where the agency thoroughly considered the information and reasonably determined that it provided no basis to change the prior past performance rating for the protester. 2.  Protest of agency’s evaluation of protester’s and awardee’s past performance, which found the two firms had essentially equal past performance, is denied where the record establishes that the agency comprehensively considered relevant past performance information for both offerors, recognized positive and negative aspects of both offerors’ past performance, and reasonably determined that the proposals were essentially equal. DECISION Walden Security, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, protests the award of two contracts to Paragon Systems, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DJM-16-A32-R-0001, issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), for court security officers (CSO) for three federal judicial circuits.  The protester challenges the agency’s past performance evaluation. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 22, 2016, the USMS issued the RFP seeking court security officer services for the 3rd, 4th, and 12th federal judicial Circuits.[1]  RFP at 2.  The solicitation anticipated the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, time-and-materials/labor-hour contracts, for a base year, with four 12-month options.  Although the solicitation contemplated a separate contract award for each judicial circuit, and required that offerors submit a single technical proposal for all circuits proposed, offerors were not required to submit offers for all three circuits.  Id. at L-4. The RFP provided for award on a best-value basis, considering price and the following two factors:  technical and past performance.  RFP at M-1, M-2, M-5.  For purposes of award, the technical factor and past performance factor were equal in importance, and the technical and past performance factors, when combined, were “significantly” more important than price.  Id. at M-1.  In addition, the solicitation provided that the agency would assign adjectival ratings to the offerors’ proposals under each evaluation factor and subfactor, and included definitions for each rating.  As relevant here, the ratings for the past performance factor were exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, unsatisfactory, or neutral.  Id. at M.4, M.5. The agency received a number of timely proposals for each of the circuits, including a proposal from Paragon for all three circuits, and from Walden for the 3rd and 4th circuits.  Agency Report (AR) at 9.  After evaluating proposals, the agency concluded that Paragon’s proposal represented the best value to the government for each circuit, and awarded contracts for all three circuits to that firm.  Id.  Walden and another unsuccessful offeror filed protests with our Office challenging the agency’s evaluation and source selection.  In response to the protests, the agency advised our Office of its intention to take corrective action consisting of reevaluating the technical proposals of the two protesters and the awardee, and making new source selection decisions for all three judicial circuits.  AR, Tab 11, Notice of Corrective Action (Sept.