CoreCivic, Inc. (70CDCR19R00000002)

B-418620,B-418620.2 Jul 08, 2020 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CoreCivic, Inc., of Brentwood, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to BI Incorporated, of Boulder, Colorado, the incumbent, under solicitation No. 70CDCR19R00000002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for services in support of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) IV. CoreCivic challenges the agency's conduct of discussions, technical and price evaluation, and award 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:  CoreCivic, Inc. File:  B-418620; B-418620.2 Date:  July 8, 2020 Kara M. Sacilotto, Esq., Samantha S. Lee, Esq., Cara L. Lasley, Esq., and Adam R. Briscoe, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Anuj Vohra, Esq., Christian N. Curran, Esq., and Zachary H. Schroeder, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for BI Incorporated, the intervenor. Douglas J. Becker, Esq., and Gabriel E. Kennon, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Lois Hanshaw, Esq., and Evan C. Williams, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the adequacy of discussions is denied where the record shows that the agency’s conduct of discussions was either reasonable, or that any alleged errors were not prejudicial to the protester. 2.  Challenge to the agency’s price realism analysis is denied where the record demonstrates that the agency’s actions were reasonable and the protester abandoned the majority of its substantive arguments. DECISION CoreCivic, Inc., of Brentwood, Tennessee, protests the award of a contract to BI Incorporated, of Boulder, Colorado, the incumbent, under solicitation No. 70CDCR19R00000002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for services in support of the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) IV.  CoreCivic challenges the agency’s conduct of discussions, technical and price evaluation, and award decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Issued on May 17, 2019, the RFP sought a contractor to support the ICE component responsible for the development and implementation of programs that provide cost-effective alternatives to secure detention, including ISAP IV, a program using technology and case management to ensure compliance with release conditions, court appearances, and final orders of removal while allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in their communities.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP amend. 1 at 25.[1]  The ISAP IV contractor would provide community-based supervision, in-person reporting, telephonic reporting, and GPS monitoring or biometric technology monitoring services across the nation.  Id.  The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a performance period of a base year and four 1-year option periods.  AR, Tab 6, RFP amend. 5 at 66.  The RFP contemplated award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering three evaluation factors:  technical, past performance, and price.  RFP at 74.  The technical factor was more important than past performance, and when combined, these factors would be more important than price.  Id.  The technical factor included two subfactors:  staffing plan/qualifications of key personnel (staffing plan) and operations plans.  Id.  Although the sub-factors would not be separately rated, the staffing plan was more important than the operations plan.  Id.  Price would be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with one or more price analysis techniques identified in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) section 15.404 and any proposal found to be unreasonable or materially unbalanced could be rejected.  AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 1 at 144.  The RFP stated that if considered to be in the best interest of the government, the government intended to make award on the basis of initial offers without discussions and advised offerors to submit their best price and technical proposal in their initial submission.  RFP at 67; AR, Tab 15, Emails between ICE and CoreCivic at 40. By the July 1 initial closing date, the agency received proposals from only CoreCivic and BI.  COS at 7.  The agency evaluated proposals and decided to hold discussions.  Id. at 8.  On September 10, ICE issued clarification and discussion questions to CoreCivic regarding its past performance, price, and technical proposals.  AR, Tab 13, CoreCivic Discussions at 3-5.[2]  As relevant here, ICE informed CoreCivic that its proposed pricing for 11 of the 26 contract line item numbers (CLINs) identified in the RFP appeared significantly understated.  Id.