Continuity Global Solutions-Secure Me WLL Security, JV (19AQMM20R0013)

B-419070 Nov 30, 2020 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Continuity Global Solutions (CGS), of Falls Church, Virginia, challenges the decision by the Department of State (DOS) to eliminate its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM20R0013, which was issued for worldwide security services. The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposal technically unacceptable because it failed to meet the solicitation's minimum experience requirements. 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:  Continuity Global Solutions File:  B-419070 Date:  November 30, 2020 Robert Nichols, Esq., Samuel Van Kopp, Esq., and Andrew Victor, Esq., Nichols Liu LLP, for the protester. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Jonathan L. Kang, Esq., and Laura Eyester, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Challenge to the agency’s finding that the protester’s proposal failed to meet a mandatory solicitation requirement for experience is denied where the agency reasonably interpreted the requirement and found that the protester’s proposal failed to satisfy it. DECISION   Continuity Global Solutions (CGS), of Falls Church, Virginia, challenges the decision by the Department of State (DOS) to eliminate its proposal from the competition conducted under request for proposals (RFP) No. 19AQMM20R0013, which was issued for worldwide security services.  The protester argues that the agency unreasonably found its proposal technically unacceptable because it failed to meet the solicitation’s minimum experience requirements. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND DOS issued the solicitation on May 19, 2020, seeking proposals for the agency’s Worldwide Protective Services (WPS) III requirement.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP § A at 1; id. § C, Statement of Work (SOW) at 6.  The agency’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is responsible for the safety and security of the DOS employees serving in the United States and overseas.  SOW at 6.  The SOW states that “[t]he primary objective of this contract is to secure best-in-class and on-time delivery of those Contractor-provided resources and services DS/[Office of Overseas Protection]/ [Worldwide Protective Services Division] deems necessary to meet DS’ global security and protective responsibilities.”  Id.  The contractor will be responsible for the following requirements at locations throughout the world:  “Ensuring the safety and security of the Department’s facilities, buildings, property, and employees and their accompanying eligible household members, as well as any DS/[regional security officer (RSO)]-designated U.S. and foreign Government dignitaries, diplomats, officials, employees, and others.”  Id. at 8. The RFP anticipated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts with base periods of 1 year and nine 1-year options.  RFP § B at 1; id. § F at 4.  The maximum ordering value for the contract is $15 billion.  Id. § B at 1.  The solicitation stated that proposals would be evaluated in two phases.  Id. § M at 2-3.  Phase one provided for the evaluation of minimum mandatory requirements in the areas of:  (1) experience; (2) foreign ownership, control, or influence; and (3) membership with the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers’ Association.  Id. at 3-4.  The phase one criteria stated that proposals that failed to meet the minimum requirements “will be excluded from further consideration and will not be evaluated.”  Id. at 3. Proposals that met the minimum requirements of the phase one evaluation were to be evaluated under phase two, which provided for the evaluation of the following three factors:  (1) price, (2) past performance and (3) sample task order evaluation.  Id. at 5‑10.  For purposes of award, the three evaluation factors were of equal importance.  Id.