Continuity Global Solutions, LLC

B-422939.3 Nov 17, 2025 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Continuity Global Solutions, LLC (Continuity), located in Port St. Joe, Florida, protests the results of corrective action, reaffirming the award of a contract to Pond Security Service GmbH (Pond), located in Erlensee, Germany, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W564KV23R0050, issued by the Department of the Army, for security guard services. Continuity challenges the agency's reevaluation of past performance proposals and new best-value tradeoff analysis, which followed a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) sustaining a prior protest by Continuity. 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 public version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Continuity Global Solutions, LLC File: B-422939.3 Date: November 17, 2025 Carla J. Weiss, Esq., Robert Nichols, Esq., and Logan Kemp, Esq. Nichols Law, LLP, for the protester. Paul D. Reinsdorf, Esq., Law Office of Paul D. Reinsdorf; Edward V. Arnold, Esq., and Sarah E. Barney, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP, for Pond Security Service GmbH, the intervenor. Lieutenant Colonel Peter DiPaola, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony V. Lenze, Robert B. Neill, Esq., Sana Daniell, Esq., and Gregory A. Moritz, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging the agency's reevaluation of past performance proposals as part of corrective action is denied where the reevaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation; the protester's challenges are based largely on its disagreement with the evaluators' findings, which is insufficient to sustain the protest. 2. Protest of agency's best-value tradeoff decision is denied where the tradeoff was reasonable, consistent with the solicitation, and adequately documented. DECISION Continuity Global Solutions, LLC (Continuity), located in Port St. Joe, Florida, protests the results of corrective action, reaffirming the award of a contract to Pond Security Service GmbH (Pond), located in Erlensee, Germany, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W564KV23R0050, issued by the Department of the Army, for security guard services. Continuity challenges the agency's reevaluation of past performance proposals and new best-value tradeoff analysis, which followed a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) sustaining a prior protest by Continuity. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2023, the Army issued the solicitation to acquire armed guard security services at United States Army Garrisons in Germany, known as the Germany Wide Guards (GWG) solicitation. Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 1; RFP at 1.[1] The stated objective of the procurement is to obtain armed guards to provide installation access control, roving security patrols, explosive detection dog teams, intrusion detection system monitoring, pass and badge control, static personal security, or any other security related functions specified in the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS). See generally, RFP at 74-89. The solicitation contemplated the award of a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract with an 8-year ordering period, inclusive of one 6-month phase-in period and one 6-month option period. RFP at 147. Orders issued under the contract will be performed on either a fixed-price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment basis. Id.; COS at 2. The solicitation provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis considering the following three factors: (1) technical;[2] (2) past performance; and (3) price. RFP at 147. The technical factor had two equally weighted subfactors (phase-in plan and management plan). Id. For purposes of award, the technical factor was more important than the past performance factor and, when combined, the non-price factors were approximately equal in importance to price. Additionally, the RFP indicated that the agency reserved the right to make award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or to the offeror with the most highly rated proposal. Id. With respect to past performance, offerors were instructed to submit up to seven contract references that would be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of effort. Id. at 142, 150-151. For recency, a contract reference had to be for a contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 5-years of the solicitation date. Id. Relevancy was determined by an evaluation of the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the contract references. Relevant scope was defined as contracts involving armed security guard services.