Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC

B-417963 Dec 17, 2019 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the terms of request for offers (RFO) No. 4600, issued by the Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for integrated facilities management services. Centerra argues that the agency improperly has published its proprietary information as part of the solicitation. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC File:  B-417963 Date:  December 17, 2019 Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and John J. O’Brien, Esq., Cordatis LLP, for the protester. Nicholas Bidwell, Esq., and Marianna Lvovsky, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest alleging that agency improperly released protester’s proprietary information is denied where record shows that the information at issue is not proprietary in nature, and also that the release of the information could not have caused the protester competitive harm. DECISION Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC, of Reston, Virginia, protests the terms of request for offers (RFO) No. 4600, issued by the Department of Energy,  Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for integrated facilities management services.  Centerra argues that the agency improperly has published its proprietary information as part of the solicitation. We deny the protest. There are very few operative facts in this case.  The RFO contemplates the award of a single contract to perform comprehensive facilities management services at all of the BPA’s facilities located throughout the Pacific Northwest region of the United States.  Centerra currently is an incumbent facilities management contractor for a portion of the agency’s requirements at certain locations.  The record shows that, as part of the RFO, the agency included a chart that listed all of the facilities management personnel providing services to the agency at all locations throughout the BPA enterprise.  Included in this list were some 32 individuals that are Centerra employees.  The list contains details concerning these individuals, including their names, position, basis of pay (Service Contract Act wage employees, collective bargaining agreement employees or salaried/exempt employees), a brief description of their duties, and the location where they work.  Agency Report (AR) exh. A.2, BPA Staffing Chart.  Centerra argues that this information is proprietary to the firm, and that the agency’s release of the information will cause it competitive harm in its effort to win the solicited requirement.  Centerra argues that the names of all of its employees, along with the information relating to their positions and work duties, shows how Centerra staffed the predecessor contract, and that release of this information will provide an improper advantage to any other firm competing for the requirement.  We find no merit to Centerra’s protest.  Our Office has recognized the right of a firm to protect its proprietary data from improper release in a solicitation.  In such cases, the record must show:  (1) that the information is proprietary in nature; that it was submitted to the government in confidence; that its development involved significant time and expense; and that it includes material or concepts that could not be independently obtained from publicly available literature or common knowledge; and (2) that the protester will be competitively prejudiced by the release of the information.  Rothe Development, Inc., B-279839, July 27, 1998, 98-2 CPD ¶ 31 at 2.  Release of information concerning, for example, the number of personnel performing an incumbent contract is not improper, Arctic Slope World Services, Inc., B-284481, B‑284481.2, Apr. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 75 at 5, nor is the release of other information (such as the number of meals served or the number of hours worked on a mess attendant contract) improper if the information in question was compiled from government-prepared contract administration documents.  Ursery Companies, Inc., B‑258247, Dec. 29, 1994, 94-2 CPD ¶ 264 at 3.  Here, the record shows that the information in question is not clearly proprietary, and in any case, there has been no showing on the part of the protester that the information will provide any firm a competitive advantage in the current competition.  As an initial matter we note that, of the 32 Centerra employees whose information was included in the RFO, nine of the individuals in question are identified as key employees under the predecessor contract performed by Centerra.  Specifically, the predecessor contract identifies each individual by name and position, and also specifically lists them as key personnel.  AR, exh.