Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (HSCEDM-16-R-00001)

B-417024.6,B-417024.7 Apr 06, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Asset Protection & Security Services, LP, of Corpus Christi, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Akima Global Services, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCEDM-16-R-00001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for guard, transportation, and food services. Asset alleges that the agency's best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable. 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:  Asset Protection & Security Services, LP File:  B-417024.6; B-417024.7 Date:  April 6, 2020 David T. Ralston, Jr., Esq., Frank S. Murrary, Esq., Julia Di Vito, Esq., and Kara Schoonover, Esq., Foley & Lardner LLP, for the protester. C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Alfred M. Wurglitz, Esq., Christoper S. Denny, Esq., and Annie M. McGuire, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Global Services, LLC, the intervenor. Javier A. Farfan, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Young H. Cho, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency’s selection of a higher-rated, higher-priced proposal for award is unobjectionable where the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Asset Protection & Security Services, LP, of Corpus Christi, Texas, protests the award of a contract to Akima Global Services, LLC, of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. HSCEDM-16-R-00001, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for guard, transportation, and food services.  Asset alleges that the agency’s best-value tradeoff analysis was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The solicitation was issued on August 22, 2016, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, for detention, transportation and food services for the Florence Detention Center, in Florence, Arizona.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, Original RFP, at 1-2; AR, Tab 14, RFP, at 2, 127.[1]  The solicitation contemplated the award of a fixed-price and labor-hour indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with one 60-day transition period, one 10-month base period, and seven 1-year option periods.  Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; RFP, at 89.  The solicitation also included FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which provided the agency with the option to extend services for six months.  Id.  Award was to be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering the following factors in descending order of importance:  demonstrated technical/management capability (technical/management), past performance, administration, and price.  Id. at 139.  The technical/management factor included the following four subfactors:  performance work statement (PWS), quality control plan, transition plan, and staffing plan.  Id. at 140-143.  The total price for all of the contract line item numbers (CLINs) would be used for the evaluation of price proposals using one or more of the price analysis techniques specified in FAR § 15.404‑1(b).  Id. at 145.  The RFP stated that all non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price.  Id. at 139. The agency received six proposals by the initial RFP closing date of January 4, 2017, including those from Asset and Akima.  COS at 10.  The agency evaluated the proposals and awarded the contract to Akima on September 26, 2018.  Id. at 11.  Asset and another disappointed offeror filed protests with our Office, challenging the agency’s award to Akima; these protests were docketed as B-417024, B-417024.2, and B‑417024.3.  We dismissed these protests as academic based on the agency’s notice of its intent to take corrective action by reviewing and revising the solicitation as necessary, accepting revised proposals, conducting a new evaluation, and making a new source selection decision.  Asset Protection & Sec. Servs., LP, B-417024.2, Nov.