AGMA Security Service, Inc. (70RFP120RE2000002 )

B-419443 Feb 19, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AGMA Security Service, Inc., of Hormigueros, Puerto Rico, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Kerberos International, Inc., also a small business, of Temple, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFP120RE2000002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Protective Service, for protective security officer (PSO) services at various Customs and Border Protection facilities in Puerto Rico. AGMA argues that DHS improperly failed to evaluate its proposal and misevaluated the awardee's proposal. 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:  AGMA Security Service, Inc. File:  B-419443 Date:  February 19, 2021 Alan Grayson, Esq., for the protester. Denise A. McLane, Esq., and H. Weston Miller, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Paul N. Wengert, Esq., and Tania Calhoun, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency improperly failed to evaluate protester’s proposal under technical factors is denied where solicitation anticipated limiting the number of proposals to be evaluated and the agency complied with the terms of the provision; and protest that agency misevaluated awardee’s proposal is denied where evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION   AGMA Security Service, Inc., of Hormigueros, Puerto Rico, a small business, protests the award of a contract to Kerberos International, Inc., also a small business, of Temple, Texas, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFP120RE2000002, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Protective Service, for protective security officer (PSO) services at various Customs and Border Protection facilities in Puerto Rico.  AGMA argues that DHS improperly failed to evaluate its proposal and misevaluated the awardee’s proposal.  We deny the protest.  BACKGROUND The RFP, issued August 25, 2020, sought proposals to provide PSO services under a single fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four option years, and an additional 6-month extension of services option.  The RFP was set aside for participants in the Small Business Administration’s section 8(a) program, and provided that a contract would be awarded to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value under three factors:  past performance, management approach, and price.  The RFP indicated that the non-price factors were more important than price in determining which proposal offered the best value, but that not all proposals would be fully evaluated.  Instead, the agency would select the most competitively priced offers for evaluation under the past performance and management approach factors (together described as the technical evaluation), according to the following rationale:[1]   The technical proposals of those offerors whose pricing is determined by the Contracting Officer to be most competitive may be reviewed prior to, or instead of, other technical proposals received.  Based on the initial review of these technical proposals, the Government may not evaluate the technical proposals of other offerors, whose total evaluated pricing was higher than that of one already evaluated and already assigned the highest possible technical adjectival rating.  This would occur when the Contracting Officer determines that one or more of the technical proposals already reviewed is of such a level of quality that it would not be in the interest of the Government to incur cost beyond the price of the technical proposals already reviewed.  Agency Report (AR), Tab 5a, RFP at 299.  Each offeror was to submit past performance information on contracts currently being performed or performed within the past three years that would be assessed to determine relevance to the requirements.  Id.  The agency would consider the quality of relevant performance, based on all available information, and would use both relevance and quality to determine an overall past performance rating.  Id. at 300.  The offeror’s management approach proposal was to include specific explanations of its approach in the areas of quality assurance and transition.  AR, Tab 5b, RFP amend. 1 at 6.  Each offeror’s price schedule was to include both unit prices and extended prices (that is, the unit price multiplied by the RFP’s estimated quantity).  Additionally, offerors were instructed to submit a separate detailed price breakdown for use in assessing price realism.  AR, Tab 5a, RFP at 5, 281; AR, Tab 5b, RFP amend.