G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc.

B-414755 Sep 08, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., of Jupiter, Florida, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration for contract award under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCEDM-17-R-00002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for detainee transportation services in the San Antonio, Texas, area. G4S argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was improper. 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:  G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. File:  B-414755 Date:  September 8, 2017 Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for the protester. Tatiana Boza, Esq., and Christopher M. Alwood, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly evaluated the protester's proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the solicitation requirements. DECISION G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., of Jupiter, Florida, protests the exclusion of its proposal from further consideration for contract award under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCEDM-17-R-00002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for detainee transportation services in the San Antonio, Texas, area.  G4S argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal was improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The ICE is responsible for the detention, health, welfare, transportation, and deportation of immigrants in removal proceedings and immigrants subject to final order of removal.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 7, Performance Work Statement (PWS) § 1.2.  Within ICE, the Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) is responsible for carrying out all orders for the required departure of immigrants handed down in removal proceedings, or prior thereto, and arranging for the detention of immigrants when such becomes necessary.  Id., § 1.3.  To accomplish its responsibilities, ERO developed the PWS here, which defined the agency's requirements for detention and transportation services for the ICE San Antonio Field Office area of responsibility.  Id., § 1.1. The RFP, issued on October 26, 2016, contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery requirements contract, under which fixed-price task orders would be issued, for a 3-year base period and two 1-year options.[1]  AR, Tab 6, RFP § B.8.  In general terms, the contractor was to provide all personnel, supplies, and equipment necessary to perform the specified tasks.  PWS § 1.4.  The RFP established that contract award would be made on a best-value basis, based on six evaluation factors in descending order of importance:  (1) technical; (2) management; (3) operational capability demonstration; (4) past performance; (5) subcontracting plan; and (6) price.  RFP §§ M.1, M.2.  The RFP also contemplated award would be made without discussions, and established that the evaluation would be conducted using a two-phase approach.  In the first phase, offerors would be evaluated on essentially a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis using all factors other than operational capability demonstration.[2]  Id.  For those offerors rated as satisfactory (and reasonably-priced) in phase one, the second phase would consider offerors' operational capability demonstrations, through the use of oral presentations.  Id.  The protest here concerns the phase one evaluation of G4S's proposal. G4S was among the offerors that submitted proposals by the January 13, 2017, closing date.  An agency technical evaluation team (TET) thereafter assessed offerors' phase-one proposals, with the final evaluation ratings of G4S as follows:   G4S Technical Unsatisfactory Management Satisfactory Operational Capability Demonstration Not Rated Past Performance Satisfactory Subcontracting Plan Acceptable Price Reasonable Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 3; AR, Tab 17, G4S Evaluation Report (Technical) at 1-11; Protest, exh.