Allied Universal Security Services

B-417376.2,B-417376.3 Jun 20, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Universal Protection Service, LP, of Santa Ana, California, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services (Allied), protests the award of a contract to Triple Canopy Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFP418RE5000005, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Protective Service (FPS), for commercial protective security officer (PSO) services throughout the State of Michigan. Allied argues that FPS misevaluated Triple Canopy's past performance, conducted flawed discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. 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: Universal Protection Service, LP dba Allied Universal Security Services File: B-417376.2; B-417376.3 Date: June 20, 2019 Jeff R. Vogel, Esq., and Matthew J. Howell, Esq., Cozen O'Connor, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., David S. Cohen, Esq., and John J. O'Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Triple Canopy Inc., the intervenor. Denise A. McLane, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency improperly evaluated past performance by crediting the awardee with the past performance of its corporate affiliate, which served as the incumbent contractor, is denied where the awardee's responses to discussions showed that the affiliate's resources would be meaningfully involved in performance by the awardee, the discussions held with both offerors were fair, and the evaluation was reasonable. 2. Protest challenging a source selection decision as unreasonable is denied where the source selection authority documented consideration of the evaluation record and the determination that the awardee's advantages over the protester's proposal were sufficient to justify incurring the awardee's higher price. DECISION Universal Protection Service, LP, of Santa Ana, California, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services (Allied), protests the award of a contract to Triple Canopy Inc., of Reston, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFP418RE5000005, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Protective Service (FPS), for commercial protective security officer (PSO) services throughout the State of Michigan. Allied argues that FPS misevaluated Triple Canopy's past performance, conducted flawed discussions, and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on April 17, 2018, sought proposals to provide services under a fixed-price and cost-reimbursement contract for a base year and four option years, with up to a 6-month extension-of-services option. The contract was to be awarded to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value as evaluated under three factors: relevant past performance, management approach, and price. RFP at 42. The RFP directed offerors to provide specific responses to four elements related to management approach: quality assurance, transition, staffing (including a staffing plan and a relief plan), and, where applicable, mentor and protégé roles for participants in the DHS mentor-protégé program. Id. at 47-51. The relevant past performance factor was more important than the management approach factor and, when combined, those factors were more important than price. Id. at 42. The relevant past performance factor evaluation was to assess contracts performed within the preceding three years based on the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the contracts individually or in the aggregate, whichever the agency decided. Id. at 45-46. Each offeror could submit up to three past performance references, but for offerors that proposed a teaming arrangement, the RFP permitted the submission of three additional references for partners and subcontractors. Id. In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that FPS would "consider the quality of the [c]ontractor's relevant past performance." Id. at 46. FPS received proposals from seven offerors, including Allied and Triple Canopy. Agency Report (AR), Tab 13, Pre-Negotiation Business Memorandum, at 3. After an initial evaluation, FPS established a competitive range of three offerors, including both Allied and Triple Canopy, and held discussions with each. The initial discussion questions provided to Triple Canopy asked the firm to address concerns identified about its [DELETED], which Triple Canopy addressed through revisions to its proposal. AR, Tab 14, Discussions with Triple Canopy, at 15 (Cover Letter to Proposal Revision, Oct. 11, 2018).