Triple Canopy, Inc. (FA489022R0012)

B-420691.2,B-420691.3 Oct 28, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Triple Canopy, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ITA International, LLC, of Newport News, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA-4890-22-R-0012, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide base security operations and services in support of the Air Force's Central Command/Force Protection Requirement at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. The protester contends that the agency's evaluation of past performance proposals was unreasonable, and as a result, the best-value tradeoff selection decision was flawed. 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: Triple Canopy, Inc. File: B-420691.2; B-420691.3 Date: October 28, 2022 Jonathan J. Frankel, Esq., and Karla J. Letsche, Esq., Frankel PLLC, for the protester. Lauren N. Pennington, Esq., and Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., Williams Mullen, for ITA International, LLC, the intervenor. Aaron J. Weaver, Esq., Erika Whelan Retta, Esq., Beatrice K. Foster, Esq., and Cheronne R. Wilson, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging evaluation of past performance proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where issuance of a task order to the higher-priced offeror with higher past performance confidence rating was reasonable and consistent with the stated selection criteria. DECISION Triple Canopy, Inc., of Herndon, Virginia, protests the issuance of a task order to ITA International, LLC, of Newport News, Virginia, under fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) No. FA-4890-22-R-0012, which was issued by the Department of the Air Force, to provide base security operations and services in support of the Air Force’s Central Command/Force Protection Requirement at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina. The protester contends that the agency’s evaluation of past performance proposals was unreasonable, and as a result, the best-value tradeoff selection decision was flawed. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On October 29, 2021, the Air Force issued the solicitation under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 16.5, to firms holding one of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services unrestricted pool 1, multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts for professional, physical security, and badging services. FOPR at 1.[1] The FOPR, known as the 9th Air Force Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron (9AF ESFS) Staff Support Services, included a detailed performance work statement (PWS), see id. at 13-54, which identified 19 specific task (and subtasks) to be performed at six overseas locations[2] and in the continental United States (CONUS). Id. at 21-36. These tasks include security forces armorer support, security forces supply support, security forces vehicle manager support, pass and identification office support, K-9 training support, and industrial/information security support. Id. The PWS required a total of 73.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) across the required locations. Id. at 57-59. The FOPR contemplated issuance of a fixed-price level-of-effort task order with a 1-year base performance period (including a transition period) with four option years, and an additional, optional 6-month extension. Id. at 77. Offerors were advised that the selection decision would be on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following evaluation factors: (1) technical; (2) past performance; and (3) price. Id. at 7. The solicitation provided that the technical factor would be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis. Id. at 8-9. Next, the agency would conduct a tradeoff analysis considering the past performance and price factors, with past performance being significantly more important than price. Id. at 7. Triple Canopy’s protest involves the evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor. Finally, relevant here, the solicitation stated that the agency intended to make a selection decision without conducting what the solicitation referred to as “interchanges” with offerors, but reserved the right to conduct interchanges “for the purpose of addressing deficiencies, errors, omissions or other mistakes in proposals.” Id.