SecTek, Inc. (1333BJ19Q00052009)

B-417852.2 Jan 13, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SecTek, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Centerra Group, LLC, of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1333BJ19Q00052009, issued by the Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), for armed security guards. SecTek argues that the agency misevaluated the quotations. The protest is denied. 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:  SecTek, Inc. File:  B-417852.2 Date:  January 13, 2020 Donald J. Walsh, Esq., Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., David S. Cohen, Esq., Laurel A. Hockey, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for Centerra, the intervenor. Abigail Nawrocki, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated quotations is denied where the record reflects that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. DECISION SecTek, Inc., of Reston, Virginia, protests the award of a task order to Centerra Group, LLC, of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1333BJ19Q00052009, issued by the Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), for armed security guards.  SecTek argues that the agency misevaluated the quotations. We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND On June 11, 2019, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 8.4, the agency issued the RFQ to vendors holding General Services Administration professional services Federal Supply Schedule contracts with special item number 246‑54 for protective service operations.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1.  The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a time-and-materials task order to provide armed security guards for PTO facilities for a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFQ at 4.  The RFQ provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, using the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical approach, staffing plan, past performance, and price.[1]  RFQ at 75.  The agency received quotations from SecTek and Centerra by the July 9 closing date.  COS at 4.  The agency evaluated quotations and on August 9, selected Centerra for award on the basis that the firm represented the best overall value to the PTO in accordance with the RFQ’s evaluation approach.  Id. at 5. On August 14, SecTek filed a protest with our Office contesting the award to Centerra.  On September 10, the agency notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action by reevaluating the technical and price quotations of SecTek and Centerra.  On September 13, our Office dismissed the protest as academic.  SecTek, Inc., B-417852, Sept. 10, 2019 (unpublished decision). The agency reevaluated SecTek and Centerra’s quotations, rating them as follows:   Tech. Approach Staffing Plan Past Performance Total Price Centerra Outstanding Outstanding Substantial Confidence $69,114,958 SecTek Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Confidence $63,812,890   AR, Tab 11, Post-Corrective Action Evaluation Memorandum at 3-4.  On October 1, the agency again selected Centerra as the awardee.  AR, Tab 12, Post-Corrective Action Agency Award Decision, at 2.  This protest to our Office followed. DISCUSSION SecTek, the incumbent contractor, challenges the agency’s evaluation of quotations under the technical approach, past performance, and price factors.[2]  Protester’s Comments at 3-8.  The protester also argues that the agency’s best-value tradeoff decision was unreasonable.  Although we do not discuss each ground raised by SecTek below, we have reviewed them all and find that none provide a basis to sustain the protest. The evaluation of quotations is a matter within the agency’s discretion.  Advisory Technical Consultants, B-416981.3, June 4, 2019, 2019 CPD ¶ 209 at 3.  In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate quotations, but instead, will examine the record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations.  OPTIMUS Corp., B-400777, Jan. 26, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 33 at 4.  A protester’s disagreement with an agency’s judgment, without more, is insufficient to establish that an agency acted unreasonably.  Converge Networks Corp., B-415915.2, B-415915.3, Aug.