File Not Found

B-424349,B-424349.2 Jun 08, 2026 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Servexo Protective Services, Inc., a small business of Gardena, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Valletta Industries, a small business of Covington, Louisiana, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1232SA26Q0018, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for security guard services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as unacceptable. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Servexo Protective Services, Inc. File: B-424349; B-424349.2 Date: June 8, 2026 Kaycilyn Cate Abrera for the protester. Daniel J. Strouse, Esq., and Samuel Van Kopp, Esq., Cordatis Law LLP, for Valletta Industries, the intervenor. Adam Humphries, Esq., U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Jacob M. Talcott, Esq., and Heather Weiner, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging the agency's evaluation of the protester's quotation as unacceptable is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation. DECISION Servexo Protective Services, Inc., a small business of Gardena, California, protests the issuance of a task order to Valletta Industries, a small business of Covington, Louisiana, under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 1232SA26Q0018, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for security guard services. The protester contends that the agency unreasonably evaluated its quotation as unacceptable. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On January 28, 2026, the agency issued the solicitation seeking quotations from small businesses holding General Services Administration federal supply schedule (FSS) contracts under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612, security guards and patrol services. Agency Report (AR), Tab 2, Instructions to Vendors at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) at 1. The solicitation was issued in accordance with the procedures of the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Overhaul (RFO) part 8 and General Services Administration Manual subpart 538.71. Electronic Protest Docketing System (Dkt.) No. 38.[1] The RFQ contemplated the issuance of a hybrid fixed‑price, labor‑hour task order for security guard services at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility located in Manhattan, Kansas, for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. AR, Tab 1, RFQ at 1, 10. The due date for quotations was March 10, 2026. Id. at 1. The solicitation provided for the evaluation of quotations based on five factors. Id. at 11. The factors required vendors to: attend a site visit (factor 1); meet contractor performance assessment rating system (CPARS) evaluation criteria (factor 2); provide documented experience to demonstrate recent and relevant experience (factor 3); submit a project manager's resume (factor 4); and submit a letter of commitment for the individual proposed as the project manager (factor 5). Id. As relevant to this protest, under the CPARS evaluation factor, the agency was to review each vendor's CPARS performance ratings for the following categories: quality, management, and schedule.[2] Id. The solicitation provided that “[a]ny CPARS ratings category (Quality, Management, Schedule) that has [a] rating of marginal or unsatisfactory in more than 10 [percent] of the total number of ratings for that category, shall result in an overall ‘Unacceptable' rating.” Id. The solicitation provided for award on a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis. Id. at 10. The agency first was to select the quotation with the lowest price and then determine whether the quotation was technically acceptable. AR, Tab 2, Instructions to Vendors at 3. If the agency determined that the quotation was not technically acceptable under any of the five factors, the agency would evaluate the next lowest-price quotation until it found a technically acceptable quotation. Id. The agency received timely quotations from seven vendors, including Servexo. COS at 2. Following its evaluation, the agency determined that Servexo submitted the lowest-price quotation and selected Servexo's quotation for the technical evaluation. Id. In conducting the technical evaluation, the agency concluded that Servexo's quotation was technically unacceptable under the CPARS evaluation factor because more than ten percent of Servexo's performance ratings under the schedule category were ratings of marginal. Id. The agency noted that, of the task orders issued to Servexo under nine separate contracts from 2018 to present, Servexo received a total of seventy-four ratings under the schedule category with seventeen of those ratings being marginal. Id.; AR, Tab 8, Servexo Tech. Eval. at 1; Tab 7, Servexo CPARS Reports at 1.