ARCIS-UNISECURE-RANGERS, JV (19AQMM20R0247)

B-419481 Mar 01, 2021 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights ARCIS International-UNISECUR S.R.L.-RANGERS S.R.L. JV, of San Cesareo, Italy, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 9AQMM20R0247, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for local guard services at the United States Mission Italy. ARCIS argues that DOS unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and improperly excluded it from the competitive range. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  ARCIS International-UNISECUR S.R.L.-RANGERS S.R.L. JV File:  B-419481 Date:  March 1, 2021 Giuseppe Musilli for the protester. John W. Cox, Esq., Department of State, 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 Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated protester’s proposal as technically unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable procurement statutes and regulations; allegation that the agency unreasonably excluded protester’s proposal from the competitive range is denied where the proposal was reasonably evaluated as deficient under multiple technical factors and subfactors. DECISION ARCIS International-UNISECUR S.R.L.-RANGERS S.R.L. JV, of San Cesareo, Italy, protests its exclusion from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No.  9AQMM20R0247, issued by the Department of State (DOS) for local guard services at the United States Mission Italy.  ARCIS argues that DOS unreasonably evaluated its proposal, and improperly excluded it from the competitive range.[1] We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 25, 2020, DOS issued the RFP to procure local guard services for agency personnel and establishments throughout Italy.  AR, Tab 2, RFP amend. 3 at 1, 10.  The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to be performed on a time-and-materials/labor-hour basis over a 1-year base period and four 1‑year option periods.  Id. at 5, 24.  Award would be made on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis, considering management plan, past performance and experience, and preliminary transition plan factors.  RFP amend. 3 at 97.  The management plan factor contained five subfactors:  organization and management; key personnel; training program; contingency plan; and, quality control plan.  Id. at 94-95.  The past performance and experience factor contained two subfactors:  past performance, and experience.  Id. at 95-96. Offerors were to submit price and technical volumes with their proposals.  RFP amend. 3 at 78‑79.  The technical volume was to include one part addressing IDIQ requirements, and a second part addressing task order requirements.  Id. at 84.  When evaluating proposals, the RFP contemplated a three-phase process.  RFP, amend. 3 at 92.  First, DOS would review proposals to determine whether they complied with the proposal preparation instructions.  RFP, amend. 3 at 92.  Second, DOS would conduct a price evaluation to determine each offeror’s total price.  Id.  Third, DOS would assess each offeror’s technical proposal for acceptability.  Id.  An evaluation of unacceptable under any of the technical factors or subfactors rendered a proposal ineligible for award.  Id. at 94. ARCIS and three other offerors submitted proposals prior to the November 9 closing date.  AR, Tab 1, Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at ¶ 3; AR, Tab 7, Competitive Range Determination (CRD) at 2.  The agency evaluated the ARCIS proposal as “unacceptable” under each technical factor and subfactor.  AR, Tab 7, CRD at 6-8.  The agency largely determined that the proposal lacked requisite information, or proposed personnel and features that did not comply with solicitation requirements.  Id.  DOS did not include ARCIS in the competitive range because it concluded that the firm’s proposal required major revisions in order to be evaluated as technically acceptable.  Id. at 6, 15.  After DOS notified ARCIS that its proposal was excluded from the competitive range, the firm filed this protest with our Office. DISCUSSION ARCIS argues that its proposal contained all of the requisite information, and therefore should not have been excluded from the competitive range.  Protest at 1-5; see also Protester’s Response, Jan.