Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (36C26024Q0033)

B-422229 Feb 20, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (SLICE), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Moline, Illinois, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26024Q0033, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for security guard services at facilities within the agency's health care system in Oregon. The protester contends that the RFQ is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company File: B-422229 Date: February 20, 2024 Cecil Avery for the protester. Deborah K. Morrell, Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, for the agency. Michelle Litteken, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging solicitation requirements as unduly restrictive is denied where the record supports the agency’s position that the requirement is reasonably necessary to meet the agency’s needs. DECISION Security Logistics Intelligence Construction Engineering Company (SLICE), a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) of Moline, Illinois, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. 36C26024Q0033, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for security guard services at facilities within the agency’s health care system in Oregon. The protester contends that the RFQ is unduly restrictive of competition. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The VA issued the RFQ, as a set-aside procurement for SDVOSB concerns, pursuant to the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12, on November 6, 2023, seeking a contractor to provide security guard services at five clinics and a community resource and referral center in Oregon.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ at 1.[2] The RFQ contemplates the award of a contract with a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. Id. The RFQ provides that the agency will make award to the vendor whose quotation is most advantageous to the VA, with the following factors to be used in the evaluation: technical, past performance, and price. RFQ at 80-81. The RFQ establishes that the nonprice factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Id. at 81. As relevant to this protest, the RFQ’s performance work statement (PWS) requires that the contractor possess a private security entity license from the state of Oregon, be registered as a business with the secretary of state for the state of Oregon and have an agency executive manager in accordance with state law. RFQ at 14. The RFQ also requires that all security guards be certified by the state of Oregon and pass a criminal background check.[3] Id. Quotations were due on December 4, 2023.[4] AR, Tab 3a, amend. 1. SLICE filed this protest with our Office on November 28. DISCUSSION SLICE argues that the RFQ’s requirements are unduly restrictive of competition. Specifically, the protester contends that the requirements for offerors to possess an Oregon private security entity license, be registered as a business with the Oregon secretary of state, have an agency executive manager, and utilize only security guards that hold Oregon security guard certificates and that have satisfied a criminal background check are unnecessary to meet the VA’s needs.[5] The protester primarily contends that requiring vendors to comply with Oregon licensing, certification, training, and background check requirements is unreasonable because the requirements do not apply on federal property and are therefore unnecessary for contract performance.[6] Protest at 1, 5-6; Comments at 1. The agency counters that the requirements are necessary to meet its needs because the VA relies on state licensing, certification, training, and background checks to ensure that contracted security guards are qualified and capable of contract performance. MOL at 4; COS ¶ 2. The VA also states that because the agency leases facilities, the state maintains jurisdiction, and contract performance could be disrupted if the state were to enforce the requirements on a non-compliant contractor. MOL at 4-5. The determination of an agency’s minimum needs and the best method of accommodating them is primarily within the contracting agency’s discretion, and we will not question such a determination unless it has no reasonable basis. American Int’l Movers, Inc., B-419756, July 20, 2021, 2021 CPD ¶ 269 at 4. Where matters of human life and safety are involved, our Office affords considerable deference to the judgments of the agency’s technical experts. Complete Parachute Sols., Inc., B-415240, Dec.