AKAL Security, Inc. (70T05018R5NSPP041)

B-417840.4 Apr 27, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Akal Security, Inc., of Española, New Mexico, protests the issuance of a task order to VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T05018R5NSPP040 by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for security screening services at the Kansas City International Airport (MCI). The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and the best-value tradeoff award 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:  AKAL Security, Inc. File:  B-417840.4 Date:  April 27, 2020 Keith C. Mier, Esq., and Travis R. Steele, Esq., Butler Snow LLP, for the protester. John R. Tolle, Esq., and H. Todd Whay, Esq., Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & Werfel, LLP, for VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., the intervenor. Michael Kiffney, Esq., and Christopher Reames, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of proposals and best-value tradeoff award decision is denied where the record shows that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest that the agency failed to evaluate to awardee’s proposal for price realism is denied where the stated evaluation criteria did not call for a price realism evaluation. DECISION Akal Security, Inc., of Española, New Mexico, protests the issuance of a task order to VMD Systems Integrators, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70T05018R5NSPP040 by the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for security screening services at the Kansas City International Airport (MCI).[1]  The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and the best-value tradeoff award decision.[2]   We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on September 26, 2018, sought proposals to provide comprehensive security screening services at MCI, the international airport in Kansas City, Missouri, in support of the agency’s Transportation Screening Partnership Program (SPP).[3]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP, at 6.[4]  In general terms, the awardee was to provide security screening of passengers and baggage at the airport, and to ensure the security of designated security areas.  Included within those required services was the provision of security training and related screening support services.  RFP at 10.  The resulting order was to consist of a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods, with each period consisting of required fixed-price contract line item numbers (CLIN), optional CLINs, and a cost-reimbursement CLIN for travel.  Id. at 6-8. The solicitation contemplates that the task order will be issued on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following factors:  (1) cost efficiency; (2) transition and operational management approach (transition); (3) program management and training approach (program management); (4) past performance; and (5) price.  Id. at 72.  Under the stated evaluation scheme, cost efficiency was to be evaluated first, on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.  Id. at 73.  Only proposals that were determined to be acceptable under this factor would be evaluated under the remaining factors.  The transition and program management factors were considered to be of equal weight, and each was more important than the past performance factor.  Id.  The non-price factors, when combined, were to be significantly more important than price.  Id. Six proposals were received in response to the solicitation, including those from Akal and VMD.  AR, Tab 9, Tradeoff Analysis and Award Recommendation (TAAR) at 4.  The relevant evaluation results were as follows: Akal VMD Cost Efficiency Acceptable Acceptable Transition and Operational Management Approach Outstanding Outstanding Program Management and Training Approach Good Good Past Performance Significant Confidence Significant Confidence Price $119,093,642 $113,625,753 Id. at 4.[5]  The source selection authority (SSA) reviewed and concurred with the findings of the technical evaluation team (TET) and past performance evaluation team (PPET) for the evaluations of Akal’s and VMD’s proposals.  See AR, Tab 10, SSA Decision Memo (SSDM) at 4‑5, 7-8.  The SSA conducted a comparative analysis between various proposals, including a direct comparison of the merits of VMD’s proposal to Akal’s proposal.  Id.