Rigid Security Group, Inc. (N00189-22-R-3054)

B-421409.2 Aug 14, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Rigid Security Group, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the termination of its task order contract, and the subsequent issuance of a task order contract to B3H Corporation, of Shalimar, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189-22-R-3054, issued by the Department of the Navy for instructor services. Rigid argues that the agency unreasonably terminated its task order contract as corrective action in response to a prior protest, unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made the selection decision. 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: Rigid Security Group, Inc. File: B-421409.2 Date: August 14, 2023 Anthony J. Mazzeo, Esq., Daniel R. Weckstein, Esq., and Peyton N. Farley, Esq., Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black, PLC, for the protester. Robert D. Young, Esq., Autumn W. Hazy, Esq., and Leslie Jefferson, Esq., Department of the Navy, 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 1. Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated technical and past performance proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was consistent with the solicitation, and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. 2. Protest that the agency unreasonably made the selection decision is denied where the record shows that the tradeoff analysis was consistent with the solicitation’s terms. DECISION Rigid Security Group, Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, protests the termination of its task order contract, and the subsequent issuance of a task order contract to B3H Corporation, of Shalimar, Florida, under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00189‑22‑R‑3054, issued by the Department of the Navy for instructor services. Rigid argues that the agency unreasonably terminated its task order contract as corrective action in response to a prior protest, unreasonably evaluated proposals, and improperly made the selection decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On July 22, 2022, the Navy issued the RFP under the Navy’s Seaport Next Generation (Seaport NxG) multiple-award indefinite‑delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract in order to procure expeditionary combat skills instructor services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 1, RFP at 1, 3, 78. Specifically, the selected contractor would be required to provide instructional, operational, and administrative support services. RFP, attach. 1, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 10. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price task order contract to be performed over a 3‑month mobilization period, a 9-month base period, and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 3; PWS at 10. Award would be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering technical approach, past performance, and price factors. RFP at 82. The non-price factors were considered significantly more important than the price factor, and, amongst the non‑price factors, the technical approach factor was considered to be more important than the past performance factor. Id. The RFP also advised that the price factor would become more important as the difference between technical proposals decreased. Id. at 84. The technical approach factor consisted of three subfactors: performance approach, staffing approach, and mobilization plan. RFP at 82-83. As relevant here, when describing their proposed mobilization plans, the RFP instructed offerors to provide a plan that demonstrates a clear and feasible approach to achieving full contract capability within the 90-day mobilization period. Id. at 79-80. Offerors were also instructed to identify any risks associated with their proposed mobilization plans, including challenges in recruiting sufficient numbers of certified instructors. Id. When evaluating proposed mobilization plans, the RFP advised that the agency would assess each proposed plan’s feasibility, comprehensiveness, and demonstrated capability to achieve full performance by the end of the mobilization period. Id. at 82. For the past performance factor, the RFP instructed offerors to identify a maximum of three relevant contracts performed within the past five years. RFP at 80. When evaluating past performance, the RFP advised that the agency would assess the degree of confidence that the Navy had in each offeror’s ability to perform the requirement successfully based on the demonstrated quality of performance for recent and relevant contracts. Id. at 83. Thirteen offerors submitted proposals prior to the August 22, 2022, close of the solicitation period. AR, Tab 7, Final Business Clearance Memorandum (BCM) at 4.