Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc.

B-415460.5 Apr 12, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc., B-415460, B-415460.4, Jan. 9, 2018, 2018 CPD Â¶ 23, in which we denied Sallyport's protest challenge to the Department of State's decision to reject Sallyport's proposal and issue a task order to Triple Canopy, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. SAQMMA17R0125, which was issued for security services in support of the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Sallyport argues that our decision contained errors of fact and law that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. 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:  Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc.--Reconsideration File:  B-415460.5 Date:  April 12, 2018 John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., David. C. Hammond, Esq., Robert J. Sneckenberg, Esq., and Christian N. Curran, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., and Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Request for reconsideration is denied where the requesting party has not shown that our decision contains errors of fact or law that warrant reversal or modification of the decision. DECISION Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, requests that we reconsider our decision in Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc., B-415460, B-415460.4, Jan. 9, 2018, 2018 CPD ¶ 23, in which we denied Sallyport’s protest challenge to the Department of State’s decision to reject Sallyport’s proposal and issue a task order to Triple Canopy, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, pursuant to task order request for proposals (TORFP) No. SAQMMA17R0125, which was issued for security services in support of the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Sallyport argues that our decision contained errors of fact and law that warrant reconsideration. We deny the request for reconsideration. BACKGROUND The TORFP was issued to six companies that hold Department of State Worldwide Protective Services II indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to provide personal protective services, logistical support services, and specialized security services in support of the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1.  The solicitation provided that a task order would be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis based on three factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  TORFP § M at 1.[1] With respect to price, the solicitation included nine fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLINs), each with multiple sub-CLINs.   TORFP § L at 10‑14.  Offerors were instructed to provide pricing in table 2 of the solicitation, which included cells for all fixed-price CLINs and sub-CLINs.  Id. at 10.  The solicitation also required offerors to submit a pricing proposal narrative that provides a thorough explanation and rationale for their prices and matches the pricing table.  Id.  The solicitation advised offerors that the price volume shall consist of all information required to support prices, and required all price breakdown information to be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel read/write format and be viewable in Microsoft Excel to aid in the price evaluation.  Id. at 3.  Further, all calculations and formulas were required to be unprotected and accessible in the electronic submission documents.  Id.  Specific instructions were also given for each CLIN.  For example, with respect to CLIN X01, mobilization, the solicitation instructed that prices for all mobilization/transition-in activities such as travel, labor, and life support for the mobilization/advance team shall be included under this line item.  Id. at 10.  The solicitation cautioned offerors that proposals that were not in accordance with the instructions could be considered unacceptable and rejected.  Id. at 4.  The solicitation advised that the agency would evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s responses to determine the extent to which each requirement had been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission requirements.  Id. § M at 1.  The solicitation also stated that the agency intended to issue the task order without holding discussions.  Id. at 5.  The solicitation also provided that for the purposes of award the agency would evaluate whether the offeror’s total fixed price was fair and reasonable.  Id.