PREA Auditors of America, LLC

B-417856.2 Nov 26, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights PREA Auditors of America, LLC (PREA), a small business of Cypress, Texas, protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15BNAS19RCA0126, for audits of federal correctional institutions. PREA contends that the corrective action was unnecessary and prejudicial to PREA. 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:  PREA Auditors of America, LLC File:  B-417856.2 Date:   November 26, 2019 Alan Grayson, Esq., for the protester. William Robinson, Esq., and Monica Barron, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of an agency’s decision to take corrective action is denied where the agency reasonably concluded that corrective action was necessary to address flaws in the solicitation. DECISION PREA Auditors of America, LLC (PREA), a small business of Cypress, Texas, protests the corrective action being taken by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15BNAS19RCA0126, for audits of federal correctional institutions.  PREA contends that the corrective action was unnecessary and prejudicial to PREA. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2019, BOP issued a combined synopsis/solicitation for the award of a fixed-price, requirements contract for certification of compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 standards at federal correctional institutions.  Agency Report (AR) Tab 3, RFP at 1.[1]  The RFP establishes that the procurement will be conducted using both part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) (contracting by negotiation) and FAR part 12 (acquisition of commercial items/services) procedures.  Id. at 1, 79.  The solicitation contemplated performance for a base year, four 1-year option periods, and a 6-month option to extend services under FAR clause 52.217-8.  Id. at 1.  Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering price and non-price evaluation factors.[2]  Id. at 79.  The RFP stated that all evaluation factors and subfactors, other than price, when combined, were considered significantly more important than price.  Id. at 1.  Additionally, as relevant here, the solicitation included FAR clause 52.216-19, Order Limitations, which provided for a minimum order amount of $7,000.  Id. at 7.  By the solicitation’s closing date, the agency received proposals from PREA and The Nakamoto Group, Inc. (Nakamoto), the small business incumbent.  Contracting Officer’s (CO) Statement (COS) at 1.  After evaluating proposals, the agency made award to PREA.[3]  AR, Tab 7, SSD, at 10.  After making award, the CO noticed a conflict between the minimum order clause and PREA’s proposed price.  COS at 2.  In response, the CO modified the minimum order from $7,000 to $5,995 per audit, to reflect PREA’s proposed price.  Id.  The CO reasoned this change was necessary because the $7,000 minimum order clause would not obligate PREA to furnish the supplies or services if the BOP placed an order for only one audit.  Id. at 2-3.  On August 12, the agency posted the notice of award on FedBizOps.[4]  Id. at 3.  On August 15, Nakamoto protested to our Office arguing that the solicitation was misleading because it did not indicate that price would be a deciding factor in award and that the agency unreasonably made award to PREA at a per-audit price under the $7,000 minimum order threshold. [5]  Protest (B-417856) at 1. After reviewing Nakamoto’s protest, the CO determined, in consultation with the program office, that neither of the minimum order values ($7,000 or $5,995) accurately reflected the agency’s needs because these values reflect a single audit even though the agency generally conducts more than 20 audits each year.  COS at 3.  The CO decided that rather than using a set value, it would be more appropriate to describe the minimum order in number of audits, and that doing so would impact offerors’ proposals.  Id.  Accordingly, on August 19, the agency indicated that it would take corrective action by amending the solicitation to change the minimum order from a monetary value to a minimum of 10 required audits per year, reopening discussions, and allowing offerors to submit final proposal revisions.  Id.