Government Contracting Services, LLC

B-416696.2 May 06, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Government Contracting Services, LLC (GCS), of Tacoma, Washington, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9115118R0038, issued by the Department of the Army for maintenance of electronic security systems at Fort Hood, Texas. Among other things, GCS protests that the solicitation is overly restrictive in that it requires use of an intrusion detection system manufactured by Monitor Dynamics (MD); that an offeror must be certified by MD; and that one of the potential offerors is an affiliate of MD. We dismiss the protest based on the agency's pending corrective action. View Decision Decision Matter of: Government Contracting Services, LLC File: B-416696.2 Date: May 6, 2019 Kevin Ingley, for the protester. Brian C. Habib, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest is dismissed as academic where the agency takes corrective action to determine if a sole-source procurement is appropriate after the record shows that the agency knew, prior to the closing date for proposals, that only one source was qualified to meet the solicitation's certification requirements. DECISION Government Contracting Services, LLC (GCS), of Tacoma, Washington, protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. W9115118R0038, issued by the Department of the Army for maintenance of electronic security systems at Fort Hood, Texas. Among other things, GCS protests that the solicitation is overly restrictive in that it requires use of an intrusion detection system manufactured by Monitor Dynamics (MD); that an offeror must be certified by MD; and that one of the potential offerors is an affiliate of MD.1 We dismiss the protest based on the agency's pending corrective action. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on July 27, 2018,2 seeking to award a single contract for maintenance services for various electronic security systems at Fort Hood, Texas, including an intrusion detection system (known as the Integrated Commercial Intrusion Detection System [ICIDS-II]) that is manufactured by MD. The system protects various Fort Hood facilities, including "firearm warehouses, document storage buildings, ammunition bunkers . . . [and] Sensitive [C]ompartmented Information Facilities[.]" AR, Tab 3, RFP at 20. In this context, the RFP required that "[t]he contractor performing the required services shall be a Monitor Dynamics (MD) Certified ICIDS-II Service Provider."3 Id. at 21 (emphasis added). The RFP stated that award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis considering the following three evaluation factors: mission capability (technical), past performance, and price. RFP at 97-98. In order to receive an acceptable technical rating, proposals had to be evaluated as acceptable under each of two subfactors: personnel qualifications and certifications. Id. at 98-99. For the certifications subfactor, the RFP stated: Subfactor 2: Certification. The Government will evaluate written documentation to ensure the technicians and system administrators are certified as MD trained technicians or system administrators or system integrator depending on services provided for the ICIDS-II system . . . . Id. at 98. On August 16, the day before the initial closing date for proposals, GCS filed its first protest, challenging various aspects of the solicitation. Among other things, GCS asserted that MD was "affiliated with, in collaboration with, and has a conflict of interest with one of the competitors on this procurement, Evergreen Fire Alarms LLC, dba Evergreen Fire & Security (Evergreen)" and alleged that there were "anti-competitive and predatory acts underway that are designed to achieve monopolistic power on this procurement." Initial Protest, B-416696, Aug. 16, 2018, at 2. In response to that protest, the agency took corrective action, stating that it would conduct an organizational conflict of interest investigation regarding MD and its affiliates; assess the validity of the certification requirement; and conduct market research. Accordingly, we dismissed GCS's initial protest as academic. Government Contracting Servs., B-416696, Sept. 21, 2018 (unpublished decision). GCS's first protest and the agency's subsequent corrective action revealed the following undisputed facts: In 2010, Evergreen acquired MD; to date, those companies are affiliated on the basis of common ownership; and MD's certification of GCS was terminated on August 23, 2018. See generally Protest at 2-3; AR at 9-12; Protest, Attachment 1, Oct. 29, 2010 ("Evergreen, a longtime dealer and installer of [MD's] security systems, acquired most of [MD's] assets for $720,000 at a bankruptcy auction"); AR, Tab 37, Email from Agency to MD Regarding GCS Certification, Aug.