Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc. (HS0021-22-R-0003)

B-420908,B-420908.2,B-420908.3,B-420909,B-420909.2,B-420909.3 Oct 26, 2022 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights   Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., d/b/a Paragon Investigations (Paragon), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HS002122R0002 and RFP No. HS002122R0003, issued by the U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) for background investigation (BI) services. Paragon asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, unreasonably evaluated the protester's proposal as unacceptable, and disparately evaluated proposals.   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: Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc.--dba Paragon Investigations File: B-420908; B-420908.2; B-420908.3; B-420909; B-420909.2; B-420909.3 Date: October 26, 2022 Scott F. Lane, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., and Jayna Marie Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for the protester. Sharon L. Larkin, Esq., and James M. Larkin, Esq., The Larkin Law Group LLP, for CACI, Inc.-Federal, the intervenor. Matthew T. Donohue, Esq., and Katie Oyler, Esq., Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, for the agency. Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions is denied where the record demonstrates that no discussions in fact occurred. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated technical proposals is denied where the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and procurement law and regulation. DECISION Securitas Critical Infrastructure Services, Inc., d/b/a Paragon Investigations (Paragon), of Herndon, Virginia, protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. HS002122R0002 and RFP No. HS002122R0003,[1] issued by the U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) for background investigation (BI) services. Paragon asserts that the agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions, unreasonably evaluated the protester’s proposal as unacceptable, and disparately evaluated proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND To fulfill DCSA’s continuing need for contractors to provide BI services, the agency issued these two solicitations, each of which contemplates the award of a single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity fixed-price contract. Task orders issued under each contract will be for fixed-price services priced by job type or by the estimated number of hours required to complete a task. AR, Tab 18, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 3. Each of the contracts has an estimated value of $1.5 billion over 5 years, with a maximum value of $2.25 billion. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. Three contractors currently fulfill the requirement that will be performed by the two awardees. Protest at 1. CACI, Inc.-Federal and Peraton Risk Decision, Inc. have been providing similar services to DCSA for over 15 years; each performs approximately 40 percent of DCSA’s BI needs under its incumbent contract. Id. Paragon, an incumbent contractor since 2016, performs “approximately 20% of those needs.” Id. Award would be made to the two offerors whose proposals represented the best value to the government, considering five non-price factors--proposal compliance, security, technical capability, past performance, and small business participation--and price. AR, Tab 16, RFP amend. 5, Evaluation Process at 1. Only proposals evaluated as acceptable under the first two factors--proposal compliance and security--would be further considered for award. Id. Offerors with proposals evaluated as acceptable under the first two factors would be invited to perform oral presentations. See COS at 2; AR, Tab 16, RFP amend. 5, Evaluation Process at 1. The technical capability factor consisted of three subfactors--management approach, quality control, and corporate experience--and the oral presentation would address these three subfactors. See AR, Tab 16, RFP amend. 5, Evaluation Process at 5-7. At the conclusion of each prepared presentation, the agency would conduct an “interview” with each offeror. RFP at 7-8. For approximately 60 minutes, the offeror would respond to standardized questions within specific time limits.[2] RFP at 7-8.