CORE O'Ahu, LLC (15BRRC20R00000270)

B-421714,B-421714.2 Aug 31, 2023 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights CORE O'Ahu, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Dismas Charities, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15BRRC20R00000270, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for residential reentry center (RRC) services and home confinement services for federal offenders on Oahu, Hawaii. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of the offerors' proposals under the past performance factor, the evaluation of the protester's proposal under the technical/management factor, and the best-value tradeoff 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: CORE O’Ahu, LLC File: B-421714; B-421714.2 Date: August 31, 2023 Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., and Jacob Bolinger, Esq., Haynes and Boone, LLP, for the protester. Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Esq., Dinesh C. Dharmadasa, Esq., and Whitney N. Alston, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, for Dismas Charities, Inc., the intervenor. William D. Robinson, Esq., and Monica Barron, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of past performance is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. 2. Protest that agency unreasonably failed to assign multiple strengths to protester’s proposal under the technical/management factor is denied where protester fails to demonstrate that the agency’s evaluation was unreasonable or inconsistent with the terms of the solicitation. 3. Protest of agency’s best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the agency documented its basis for selecting a higher-priced, higher-rated proposal and where the underlying evaluation was reasonable. DECISION CORE O’Ahu, LLC, of Brooklyn, New York, protests the award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to Dismas Charities, Inc., of Louisville, Kentucky, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 15BRRC20R00000270, issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for residential reentry center (RRC) services and home confinement services for federal offenders on Oahu, Hawaii. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of the offerors’ proposals under the past performance factor, the evaluation of the protester’s proposal under the technical/management factor, and the best-value tradeoff decision. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The BOP provides certain federal offenders with the opportunity to serve the final months of their sentences in RRCs or day reporting centers (DRCs). Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 1. The centers assist federal offenders during their transition from prison to the community by offering employment, housing assistance, and other opportunities. Id. The BOP procures RRC and DRC services through contractual agreements with state and local governments, as well as private contractors. Id.; see also Memorandum of Law (MOL) at 2. The BOP issued the solicitation on November 19, 2019, seeking a contractor to provide RRC and home confinement services or, in the alternative, DRC services, for offenders held on Oahu, Hawaii.[1] COS at 1. The solicitation contemplated the award of an IDIQ contract with a 1-year base period and nine 1-year option periods. MOL at 2. The solicitation provided for award to be made on the basis of a best-value tradeoff considering the following factors, listed in descending order of importance: past performance, technical/management, and price. RFP at 67.[2] The solicitation provided that the non-price factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price, and it stated that the BOP would use the following adjectival ratings when evaluating proposals under the non-price factors: exceptional, very good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory.[3] Id. at 67-68. As relevant here, for the past performance proposal volume, the solicitation stated that offerors should not submit BOP contracts for RRC services because the agency had access to records for those contracts and reserved the right to use those records in the evaluation. RFP at 254. The solicitation provided that the agency would consider the following subfactors when evaluating prior BOP contracts for RRC services in the past performance evaluation: accountability; programs; community relations; personnel; and communications and responsiveness.[4] Id.