Community Education Centers, Inc. (RFP-200-1360-ES)

B-418207,B-418207.2 Jan 24, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Community Education Centers, Inc. (CEC), of Boca Raton, Florida, protests the award of a contract to The Kintock Group, Inc., of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1360-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for residential reentry center (RRC) and home confinement services for male and female federal offenders held within the boundaries of Essex, Hudson, or Union County, New Jersey. The protester argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm and improperly evaluated its proposal under the price and past performance evaluation factors. 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:  Community Education Centers, Inc. File:  B-418207; B-418207.2 Date:  January 24, 2020 Gerard Wimberly, Jr., Esq., Angelina Christina, Esq., Elizabeth Horn, Esq., and Ayman Rizkalla, Esq., Akerman LLP, for the protester.  Franklin Turner, Esq., Ethan Brown, Esq., Alexander Major, Esq., and Cara Wulf, Esq., McCarter & English, LLP, for The Kintock Group, Inc., the intervenor.  William D. Robinson, Esq., Oleta Vassilopoulos, Esq., and Nihar Vora, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency.  Christine Milne, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency improperly failed to raise protester’s high price with the firm during discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency did not find the firm’s price unreasonably high; protester has also not shown that the price reasonableness evaluation was unreasonable. 2.  Protest that agency improperly failed to raise significant weaknesses and deficiencies with the protester’s past performance during discussions is denied where the agency did not find any such weaknesses or deficiencies, and where the protester had an opportunity to address any performance issues noted by the agency. DECISION   Community Education Centers, Inc. (CEC), of Boca Raton, Florida, protests the award of a contract to The Kintock Group, Inc., of Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RFP-200-1360-ES, issued by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for residential reentry center (RRC) and home confinement services for male and female federal offenders held within the boundaries of Essex, Hudson, or Union County, New Jersey.  The protester argues that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions with the firm and improperly evaluated its proposal under the price and past performance evaluation factors.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on November 14, 2016, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to provide services over a 1-year base period and up to four 1-year option periods.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFP at 7-8.  Offerors were to provide monthly prices for a 64-bed facility for the RRC services and for 32 home confinement placements.  Id. at 8.  Award was to be made to the firm whose proposal was in the best interest of the government considering past performance, technical/management, and price factors.[1]  Id. at 43.  The past performance factor was more important than the technical/management factor and, when combined, these two factors were significantly more important than price.  Id.  Price would, however, become more important as the evaluation of the non-price factors became more equal.  Id.  Under the past performance factor, the agency was to evaluate aspects of an offeror’s relevant present and recent past performance.[2]  Id. at 44.  Offerors were to identify the five most relevant contracts performed in the past three years and were cautioned that the evaluation might be negatively impacted if the contracts were less relevant or not relevant.  Compliance Matrix at 2.  The technical/management factor is not at issue in this protest.  Offerors’ prices for the overall requirement would be evaluated for reasonableness.  RFP at 43. The agency received four proposals by the February 2, 2017, closing date, including those from CEC and Kintock.  In March, the agency reexamined the solicitation’s requirements to ensure they were consistent with the agency’s needs and determined that, in order to ensure flexibility for placement of offenders, the use of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract would provide the agency with increased flexibility to order services.  Contracting Officer’s Statement of Facts (COS) at 2.  As a result, on July 25, the agency issued amendment No.