Inquiries Inc. (24362019R0004)

B-418486,B-418486.2,B-418486.3 May 27, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Inquiries, Inc., a small business, of Easton, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to ASRC Federal Professional Services, LLC (AFPS), also a small business, of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 24362019R0004, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), for case processing operation center (CPOC) services related to federal background investigations. Inquiries argues that the award to AFPS was improper because the agency's evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and unequal. The protester also argues that the awardee has a disqualifying organizational conflict of interest (OCI). 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:  Inquiries, Inc. File:  B‑418486; B‑418486.2; B‑418486.3 Date:  May 27, 2020 Jason A. Carey, Esq., J. Hunter Bennett, Esq., Andrew R. Guy, Esq., and Peter B. Terenzio III, Esq., Covington & Burling, LLP, for the protester. Damien C. Specht, Esq., James A. Tucker, Esq., and Alissandra D. Young, Esq., Morrison & Foerster LLP, for ASRC Federal Professional Services, LLC, the intervenor. Jay P. Fraude, Esq., Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, for the agency. Sarah T. Zaffina, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the protester’s proposal is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 2.  Protest challenging the agency’s evaluation of the awardee’s corporate experience is denied where, notwithstanding apparent errors, the protester fails to demonstrate competitive prejudice. 3.  Protest that the awardee has an impaired objectivity organizational conflict of interest is denied where the record shows that while the protest was pending, the agency meaningfully considered the potential conflicts arising from current work on other contracts by companies affiliated with the awardee and reasonably determined no conflict exists. DECISION   Inquiries, Inc., a small business, of Easton, Maryland, protests the award of a contract to ASRC Federal Professional Services, LLC (AFPS), also a small business, of Beltsville, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 24362019R0004, issued by the Department of Defense, Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), for case processing operation center (CPOC) services related to federal background investigations.[1]  Inquiries argues that the award to AFPS was improper because the agency’s evaluation of proposals was unreasonable and unequal.  The protester also argues that the awardee has a disqualifying organizational conflict of interest (OCI). We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DCSA provides background investigations for most government personnel, including federal applicants, employees, and contractors, and requires contractor‑provided CPOC services to process federal background investigations.  AR, Tab 21, RFP amend. 4 at 7.[2]  On March 29, 2019, DCSA issued the solicitation as a small business set‑aside, to provide CPOC services such as facility monitoring, case processing, program management, and implementation of the National Background Investigation System (NBIS), to which the government anticipates transitioning from the current system during the life of the contract.  AR, Tab 79, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1; RFP at 8, 22.  The solicitation anticipated the award of a fixed‑price contract with a base period of one year and four 1‑year options.  RFP at 9, 11.  The RFP provided for award on a best‑value tradeoff basis, considering five technical factors, past performance, and price.  Id. at 90‑98.  The technical factors were:  (1) management plan; (2) transition plan; (3) quality control plan; (4) staffing plan; and (5) corporate competency, which was further divided into two subfactors, corporate experience and key personnel.  Id. at 90‑93.  For purposes of award, the technical factors were relatively equal, and when combined, significantly more important than past performance, which was more important than price.  Id.