ProSecure LLC (70RFPW19RWA000003)

B-418397,B-418397.2 Apr 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ProSecure LLC, a small business of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CDA, Inc., doing business as MaxSent (MaxSent), a small business of Annapolis, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFPW19RWA000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service (FPS), for armed protective security officer services throughout Alaska. ProSecure challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the past performance and management approach factors, and alleges that the agency evaluated offers disparately. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  ProSecure LLC File:  B-418397; B-418397.2 Date:  April 15, 2020 Adam K. Lasky, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, for the protester. Denise A. McLane, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Kasia Dourney, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging various aspects of the evaluation of offerors’ past performance proposals is denied where, despite the manner in which the agency compared the magnitude of past performance references, there is no basis to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or that the protester was prejudiced by the evaluation. DECISION   ProSecure LLC, a small business[1] of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CDA, Inc., doing business asMaxSent (MaxSent), a small business of Annapolis, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFPW19RWA000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service (FPS), for armed protective security officer services throughout Alaska.  ProSecure challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals under the past performance and management approach factors, and alleges that the agency evaluated offers disparately. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFP on March 14, 2019, as a small business set-aside, anticipating award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1‑year option periods, on a best-value tradeoff basis.  AR, exh. 2, RFP at 1-2, 11; Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) ¶ 2.  Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated under three factors:  relevant past performance; management approach; and price.  RFP at 441.  The relevant past performance factor was more important than the management approach factor, and the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price.  Id.  Of particular importance here, the relevant past performance evaluation factor was to assess the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the identified contract references performed within the preceding three years, either individually or in the aggregate, at the agency’s discretion.  Id. at 443.  Each offeror could submit up to three past performance references, but for offerors that proposed a teaming arrangement, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 9.6, the RFP permitted the submission of three additional references for partners and subcontractors.  Id. at 444.  In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that FPS would “consider the quality of the [c]ontractor’s relevant past performance.”  Id. at 443.  Further, it provided that, “[i]ndeterminingthe ratingfor thepastperformance evaluation factor, the Government [would] give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFP.”  Id. at 441-42.  The RFP included an attachment, entitled “Past Project Form,” which instructed the offerors to provide detailed information for each past performance reference identified in the proposal, including the dollar value of each project, “number of posts manned,” and “number of productive protective security officer hours per year.”[2]  RFP at 318. The agency received 10 proposals by the closing date of May 29, 2019, including those from ProSecure and MaxSent.  COS ¶ 4.  FPS used a Technical Evaluation Team (TET) to review the technical proposals of the six lowest-priced offerors first, including proposals from ProSecure and MaxSent, and prepare a technical evaluation report summarizing the evaluation of each offer.  COS ¶ 9. To determine the relevancy of past performance, the TET identified benchmarks that would guide its evaluation process for scope, magnitude, and complexity of past performance references.  AR, exh.