Bering Straits Professional Services, LLC (70CDCR24R00000008)

B-422869 Nov 26, 2024 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Bering Straits Professional Services, LLC (BSPS), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Akima Infrastructure Protection, LLC (AIP), of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CDCR24R00000008, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for detention management, transportation and food services. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of its technical proposal and argues that the best-value tradeoff determination was unreasonable. 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: Bering Straits Professional Services, LLC File: B-422869 Date: November 26, 2024 Kenneth A. Martin, Esq., The Martin Law Firm, PLLC, for the protester. Lauren S. Fleming, Esq., C. Peter Dungan, Esq., Adam Bartolanzo, Esq., and Cash W. Carter, Esq., Miles & Stockbridge P.C., for Akima Infrastructure Protection, LLC, the intervenor. Javier A. Farfan, Esq., and Joshua Adams, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Heather Weiner, Esq., and Jennifer D. Westfall-McGrail, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency evaluation of protester’s technical proposal and tradeoff decision is denied where the evaluation and tradeoff decision were reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Bering Straits Professional Services, LLC (BSPS), a small business of Anchorage, Alaska, protests the award of a contract to Akima Infrastructure Protection, LLC (AIP), of Herndon, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70CDCR24R00000008, issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for detention management, transportation and food services. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of its technical proposal and argues that the best-value tradeoff determination was unreasonable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND Using the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, the agency issued the RFP on February 3, 2024, as an 8(a) set-aside, seeking detention management, transportation, and food services for detainees at the Krome Service Processing Center (SPC), in Miami, Florida.[1] Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, RFP at 1.[2] The solicitation contemplated the award of a single, fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with an ordering period of one base year and nine 1-year options. Id. Task orders issued under the contract would have both fixed-price and labor-hour contract line item numbers based on the fixed rates established in the contract. Id. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following factors, with the first three factors listed in descending order of importance: prior experience, past performance, transition-in plan, technical approach, betterment, and price. RFP at 96. Prior experience, past performance, and transition-in plan were considered more important than technical approach and betterment. All non-price factors individually were considered more important than price and, when combined, these factors were significantly more important than price. Id. The solicitation also provided that as the technical merits of competing proposals become comparable, price will become more important. Id. The solicitation explained that the individual factors would be rated holistically, with one rating for each factor, except price. Id. Prior experience, technical approach, and betterment would be rated as high confidence, some confidence, or low confidence, whereas past performance would be rated as acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral and transition-in plan would be rated as acceptable or unacceptable. RFP at 97-99, 101. The procurement was conducted in two phases using an advisory “down select” methodology. COS at 6. Phase I included evaluation of prior experience and past performance. Phase II included evaluation of the remaining factors--transition-in plan, technical approach, betterment, and price. Id. at 6‑7. After conducting the phase I evaluation, the agency received phase II proposals from five offerors, including BSPS and AIP. Id.