Protection Strategies, Inc.

B-416635 Nov 01, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protection Strategies, Inc. (PSI), a small business, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Golden SVCS, LLC, a small business, of Kingston, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-SOL-0010747, which was issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), for protective force security services for a number of DOE's facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. PSI challenges the agency's evaluation of its proposal under four of the non-cost factors, and resulting source selection decision. 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 version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  Protection Strategies, Inc. File:  B-416635 Date:  November 1, 2018 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Kathryn M. Kelley, Esq., Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq., and Timothy V. Valley, Esq. PilieroMazza PLLC, for the protester. Sylvia Yi, Esq., and Todd R. Overman, Esq., Bass, Berry & Sims, PLC, for Golden SVCS, LLC, the intervenor. Marianna Lvovsky, Esq., John L. Bowles, Esq., Kevin R. Hilferty, Esq., Wendy E. Bryant, Esq., and Kristopher D. Muse, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Evan D. Wesser, Esq., and Edward Goldstein, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals is denied where the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s source selection decision selecting a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal is denied where the agency’s best-value tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Protection Strategies, Inc. (PSI), a small business, of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to Golden SVCS, LLC, a small business, of Kingston, Tennessee, under request for proposals (RFP) No. DE-SOL-0010747, which was issued by the Department of Energy (DOE), for protective force security services for a number of DOE’s facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  PSI challenges the agency’s evaluation of its proposal under four of the non-cost factors, and resulting source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on October 6, 2017, and set-aside for small business concerns, sought proposals for protective force security services for several DOE facilities located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  RFP at 1.[1]  The RFP contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee type contract, with a two month transition period, a ten month base period, and four, 1-year option periods.  Id. at 15-18. Award was to be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff, considering five non-cost factors and cost.  Id. at 262.  Specifically, the agency was to consider the following non-cost factors:  (1) technical and business management approach (35 percent); (2) key personnel (25 percent); (3) experience (15 percent); (4) past performance (15 percent); and (5) transition approach (10 percent).  Id.  The five non-cost factors, when combined, were significantly more important than cost.  Id. With respect to the technical and business management approach factor, DOE was to evaluate the degree to which the proposal demonstrated the offeror’s understanding, capability, and approach that would allow for the successful performance of the contract.  Id.  DOE was to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and feasibility of the proposed technical approach relating to program management, duties, training, and staffing.  Id.  Offerors’ respective organizational approaches were to be evaluated based on how they supported an integrated risk-based approach to security operations involving DOE facilities, environmental management operations, and the protection of special nuclear materials, classified material, and personnel.  Id.  Offerors’ respective human resource approaches were to be evaluated considering the degree to which the approach demonstrated the offeror’s ability to design and implement innovative and effective programs that are consistent with best practices in the private sector and in support of the performance work statement requirements.  Id.  Additionally, DOE was to review the offeror’s described accounting and estimating systems, and associated internal controls.  Id. at 262-63. With respect to key personnel, DOE was to evaluate three distinct components.  First, the agency was to evaluate the degree to which the key personnel positions proposed by the offeror reflected positions that would be the most essential to the contract in relation to the method the offeror proposed to perform the work.  Id.