SRS Critical Infrastructure Security, LLC (89303318REM000015)

B-418510.9,B-418510.10,B-418510.11 May 09, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SRS Critical Infrastructure Security, LLC (SCIS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Centerra Group, LLC, of Herndon Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303318REM000015, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for paramilitary security services at the agency's Savannah River site. SCIS argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and erroneously determined Centerra complied with a material solicitation requirement. 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: SRS Critical Infrastructure Security, LLC File: B-418510.9; B-418510.10; B-418510.11 Date: May 9, 2023 Scott F. Lane, Esq., Jayna M. Rust, Esq., and Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Kara L. Daniels, Esq., Amanda J. Sherwood, Esq., and Julia Swafford, Esq., Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for Centerra Group, LLC, the intervenor. Marianna Lvovsky, Esq., Stephanie B. Young, Esq., Kevin R. Hilferty, Esq., and Sky Smith, Esq., Department of Energy, for the agency. Uri R. Yoo, Esq., and Alexander O. Levine, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably failed to reconcile its reevaluation with an earlier evaluation is denied where a different evaluation team and source selection authority were responsible for the final evaluation and award decision. 2. Protest alleging defects in the awardee’s performance guarantee is dismissed where the solicitation requirement at issue is a matter of responsibility and the protester fails to demonstrate circumstances warranting our Office’s review of the agency’s affirmative responsibility determination. DECISION SRS Critical Infrastructure Security, LLC (SCIS), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to Centerra Group, LLC, of Herndon Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 89303318REM000015, issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) for paramilitary security services at the agency’s Savannah River site. SCIS argues that the agency unreasonably evaluated proposals and erroneously determined Centerra complied with a material solicitation requirement. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, which was issued on March 6, 2019, and subsequently amended four times, sought proposals to provide paramilitary security services at the agency’s Savannah River site, a 310 square mile site located in South Carolina that houses special nuclear materials. Contracting Officer’s Statement and Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL) at 2. The solicitation contemplated the award of a performance-based contract with cost‑plus-fixed-fee and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers for a total period of performance of 10 years, consisting of a transition period of 60 days, a base period of 4 years and 10 months, a first option period of 3 years, and a second option period of 2 years. Id. at 2‑3; Agency Report (AR), Tab A, Conformed RFP at 1, 46.[1] Award was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the government based on a comparative assessment of proposals against the following four evaluation factors: (1) technical approach; (2) key personnel and organization; (3) past performance; and (4) cost and fee. RFP at 5031‑5038. The key personnel and organization factor was more important than the technical approach and past performance factors, both separately and combined, while technical approach and past performance were equal in importance. Id. at 5038. The non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than the total evaluated price.[2] Id. at 5039. The solicitation instructed offerors to prepare their proposals in three separate volumes: volume I, offer and other documents; volume II, technical and management proposal; and volume III, cost and fee proposal. Id. at 4977. As relevant here, the instructions for volume I required the offeror to provide a performance guarantee as follows: The contractor’s parent organization(s) or all member organizations if the Contractor is a joint venture, limited liability company, or other similar entity, shall guarantee performance of the contract as evidenced by the Performance Guarantee Agreement incorporated in the contract in Section J, Attachment J-10. If the Contractor is a joint venture, limited liability company, or other similar entity where more than one organization is involved, the parent(s) or all member organizations shall assume joint and severable liability for the performance of the contract. RFP at 5377.