Apogee Group, LLC (70RWMD20R00000012)

B-419969.6,B-419969.7 Apr 21, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights SeaTech Security Solutions (S3), a small business joint venture of Richland, Washington, and Apogee Group, LLC, a small business also of Richland, Washington, protest the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to K2 Construction Consultants, Inc., a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RWMD20R00000012. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued the RFP for radiation portal monitor (RPM) deployment services. The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency's evaluation of proposals and resulting best-value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protests. View Decision Decision Matter of: SeaTech Security Solutions; Apogee Group, LLC File: B-419969.6; B-419969.7 Date: April 21, 2023 Antonio R. Franco, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Jacqueline K. Unger, Esq., Kevin T. Barnett, Esq., and Daniel J. Figuenick III, Esq., Piliero Mazza, for SeaTech Security Solutions; Nicole D. Pottroff, Esq., Shane J. McCall, Esq., John L. Holtz, Esq., Stephanie L. Ellis, Esq., and Gregory P. Weber, Esq., Koprince McCall Pottroff LLC, for Apogee Group, LLC, the protesters. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., Gregory H. Koger, Esq., Kelsey M. Hayes, Esq., Richard Ariel, Esq., and Sean R. Belanger, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for K2 Construction Consultants, Inc., the intervenor. Eric M. Steinberg, Esq., and Brian C. Habib, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protests challenging the agency’s evaluation of awardee’s past performance are denied where, consistent with the terms of the solicitation, the agency reasonably found the awardee’s past performance to be relevant. 2. Protester’s contention that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal is denied where the protester’s arguments reflect nothing more than disagreement with the agency’s evaluation. Further, the protester’s characterization of the agency’s discussions as misleading is not supported by the record, which shows the protester made its own independent business judgment regarding how to respond to the agency’s identified concerns. 3. Protester’s argument that the agency unreasonably assessed its proposal with a negative finding is denied because the alleged evaluation error did not result in competitive prejudice to the protester. 4. Protests challenging the agency’s best-value tradeoff source selection decision are denied because the record shows the tradeoff was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. DECISION SeaTech Security Solutions (S3), a small business joint venture[1] of Richland, Washington, and Apogee Group, LLC, a small business also of Richland, Washington, protest the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to K2 Construction Consultants, Inc., a small business of Bethesda, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RWMD20R00000012. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued the RFP for radiation portal monitor (RPM) deployment services. The protesters challenge multiple aspects of the agency’s evaluation of proposals and resulting best‑value tradeoff source selection decision. We deny the protests. BACKGROUND The agency issued the solicitation on October 16, 2020, as a small business set-aside using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15. Contracting Officer’s Statement in S3 Protest (S3-COS) and Contracting Officer’s Statement in Apogee Group Protest (AG-COS) at 4; Agency Report (AR) Tab 6f, RFP § B at 5.[2] The agency sought proposals for RPM deployment services, including the design, construction, and installation of RPMs at the following five point of entry “vectors”: (1) land borders; (2) seaports; (3) international airports; (4) preclearance airports; and (5) international mail and express consignment courier facilities. RFP § C at 6, 11. The solicitation contemplated award of a single IDIQ contract with a mix of fixed-priced, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs); a 5-year ordering period; a minimum guarantee of $25,000; and a maximum value of $253 million. RFP § B at 5. The solicitation established that award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis using a two-phase source selection process in which “Phase I evaluation ratings [would] be used to select Phase II candidates”--i.e., a down-select. RFP § M at 131. The solicitation provided that the agency’s best‑value tradeoff process would take into consideration the evaluations from both phases, with non‑price factors, when combined, being significantly more important than price.