Johnson Controls Security Solutions (15M20019RA32NPS03)

B-418489.3,B-418489.4 Sep 15, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Johnson Controls Security Solutions, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to M.C. Dean, Inc., of Tysons, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M20019RA32NPS03, issued by the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service (USMS), for management and installation services. Johnson alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made its source selection decision. 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:  Johnson Controls Security Solutions File:  B-418489.3; B-418489.4 Date:  September 15, 2020 David R. Johnson, Esq., Tyler E. Robinson, Esq., and John M. Satira, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, LLP, for the protester. John R. Prairie, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., Moshe B. Broder, Esq., and Nicholas L. Perry, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for M.C. Dean, Inc., the intervenor. C. Joseph Carroll, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Todd C. Culliton, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluations were consistent with the solicitation’s terms and conditions, as well as applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 2.  Protest that the agency unequally evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency’s judgments were based on differences in the quality of the proposals. 3.  Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s past performance is denied where the record shows that the protester had demonstrated mostly moderate performance, supporting the agency’s evaluation. DECISION Johnson Controls Security Solutions, of Alexandria, Virginia, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to M.C. Dean, Inc., of Tysons, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15M20019RA32NPS03, issued by the Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service (USMS), for management and installation services.[1]  Johnson alleges that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made its source selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2019, the USMS issued the solicitation to procure management and installation services to support the National Physical Security Program, which provides inspection, maintenance, installation, and repair services to physical security equipment located in federal courthouses and other facilities throughout the country.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5, RFP amend. 4, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1, 3.  The RFP contemplated the issuance of fixed-price and time-and-materials task orders to be performed over a 1‑year base period and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 5, RFP, amend. 4, at 4‑8, 53.  The RFP specified that the total value of all orders placed against this contract may not exceed $200 million.  AR, Tab 5, RFP, amend. 4, at 24. Award would be made on a best-value tradeoff basis considering three factors, listed in descending order of importance:  technical and management approach, past performance, and, price.  AR, Tab 3, RFP, amend. 2, attach. 7, Evaluation Criteria, at 1.  The technical and management approach factor contained three equal subfactors:  technical approach, management approach and staffing plan, and sample request for quotations (RFQ) technical proposals.  Id.  When describing its technical approach, each offeror was instructed to articulate how it would satisfy the RFP’s requirements.  AR, Tab 3, RFP, amend. 2, attach. 6, Instructions to Offerors at 7.  Each offeror was to demonstrate its technical understanding of the agency’s requirement, show that its technical approach will result in quality performance, and describe proposed innovations.  Id.  The agency was to evaluate each proposal based on whether the technical approach was adequate, and how well each offeror would be expected to perform.  AR, Tab 3, RFP, amend. 2, attach. 7, Evaluation Criteria at 3. As for the management approach and staffing plan subfactor, each offeror was to discuss its methodology for planning, organizing, directing and controlling its resources in order to perform the requirement effectively.  AR, Tab 3, RFP, amend. 2, attach. 6, Instructions to Offerors at 7.  Each offeror was to describe its organizational structure, communications process, risk management protocols, innovative business management practices, and quality control plan.  Id.