Alutiiq Global Solutions
Highlights
Alutiiq Global Solutions protests the award of contracts to TW & Company, Inc., Chenega Security & Protection Services, LLC (Chenega SPS), and Doyon Security Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SO-06-R-0019, issued by the Army Northern Region Contracting Center, Department of the Army, for security guard services. Alutiiq argues that the agency's evaluation of offerors' proposals and source selection decision were improper.
B-299088; B-299088.2, Alutiiq Global Solutions, February 6, 2007
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: Alutiiq Global Solutions
John S. Pachter, Esq., Jonathan D. Shaffer, Esq., Stephen D. Knight, Esq., Stephanie D. Capps, Esq., and Mary Pat Gregory, Esq., Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, for the protester.
Andrew P. Hallowell, Esq., and Frank C. Gulin, Esq., Pargament & Hallowell, PLLC, for TW & Company, Inc.; David B. Dempsey, Esq., Kristen E. Ittig., Esq., and David J. Craig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for Chenega Security & Protection Services, LLC; Stuart B. Nibley, Esq., Michael J. Askew, Esq., and Emily A. Jones, Esq., Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, for Doyon Security Services, LLC, intervenors.
Capt. Sean M. Connolly and Peter D. DiPaola, Esq., Department of Army, for the agency.
Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
1. Protest is denied where there is no evidence that the contracting officer ignored relevant information in making affirmative determinations of responsibility regarding the awardees.
2. Protest allegation challenging agency's evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where the alleged evaluation error did not result in competitive prejudice to protester.
3. Protester is not an interested party to challenge evaluation of awardee's proposal where record shows that another firm, not the protester, would be in line for award if protester's challenge were sustained, and protester does not challenge evaluation of the other firm's proposal.
DECISION
Alutiiq Global Solutions protests the award of contracts to TW & Company, Inc., Chenega Security & Protection Services, LLC (Chenega SPS), and Doyon Security Services, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. W911SO-06-R-0019, issued by the
BACKGROUND
The RFP, issued on July 21, 2006, as a section 8(a) set-aside,[1] contemplated the award of up to three indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts for a base year with four 1-year options to provide security guard services in accordance with the solicitation's performance work statement (PWS) at various Army installations within three defined geographic regions--Northeast, West, and Pacific Coast. The RFP established six evaluation factors: mission capability; personnel; experience; past performance; small business participation; and price.[2] The solicitation informed offerors that the first four evaluation factors were of equal importance, and were more important than the small business participation and price evaluation factors. Additionally, all nonprice evaluation factors, when combined, were significantly more important than price. RFP at 109. Contract award for each geographic region was to be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal was determined to be most advantageous to the government based on consideration of all evaluation factors.
Fifteen offerors, including Alutiiq, TW, Chenega SPS, and Doyon, submitted proposals for one or more geographic regions by the August 11 closing date. Alutiiq, TW, and Chenega SPS proposed for all three regions, while Doyon proposed only for the
An agency source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated offerors' technical proposals using the adjectival rating system set forth in the RFP. On August 25, the SSEB provided the source selection authority (SSA) with its evaluation ratings of offerors' technical proposals, Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, SSEB Technical Evaluation Report, and the SSA also received a separate evaluation of offerors' prices.
Offerors (Northeast Region)[4] | Overall Technical | Price |
---|---|---|
TW | Very Good | $79,343,586 |
[Offeror A] | Very Good | $83,518,100 |
Chenega SPS | Very Good | $86,571,900 |
Alutiiq | Very Good | $92,204,328 |
[Offeror B] | Very Good | $99,560,147 |
Offerors (West Region)[5] | Overall Technical | Price |
---|---|---|
Chenega SPS | Very Good | $51,074,036 |
TW | Very Good | $55,279,842 |
Offeror B] | Very Good | $58,918,566 |
[Offeror A] | Very Good | $60,778,048 |
Alutiiq | Very Good | $61,951,644 |
Offerors ( | Overall Technical | Price |
---|---|---|
Doyon | Very Good | $66,750,156 |
Chenega SPS | Very Good | $67,682,445 |
TW | Very Good | $70,076,335 |
Alutiiq | Very Good | $80,311,929 |
The technical evaluation ratings of Alutiiq's proposal and its proposed prices compared to those of the three awardees is as follows:
Factor | Alutiiq | TW | Chenega SPS | Doyon |
| Very Good | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good |
Personnel | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good |
Past Experience | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good |
Past Performance | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good |
Small Business Participation | Satisfactory | Very Good | Satisfactory | Satisfactory |
Overall | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good | Very Good |
Price (Northeast) | $92,204,328 | $79,343,586 | $86,571,900 | N/A |
Price (West) | $61,951,644 | $55,279,842 | $51,074,036 | N/A |
Price ( | $80,311,929 | $70,076,335 | $67,682,445 | $66,750,156 |
Both Doyon and another offeror, Santa Fe Protective Services, identified Coastal International Security (CIS) as their subcontractor for various aspects of the security guard services.
Prior to the agency's award determination, the contracting officer recognized that the Doyon and
In regards to the above solicitation, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that I make a responsibility determination. In reviewing the proposals, I note that your proposal is virtually identical to the proposal of [Doyon, or]. . . . In order to alleviate this concern, please address this issue and explain your relationship with [Doyon, or Santa Fe ] and Coastal International Security. Santa Fe
In its reply, Doyon informed the contracting officer that while it had entered into a Department of Defense (DOD) Mentor-Prot-g- Program[8] relationship with CIS, and had relied on CIS to jointly draft Doyon's technical proposal, Doyon had no relationship with Santa Fe and had not been privy to Santa Fe's pricing.
TW's proposal identified Chenega Integrated Systems, LLC (Chenega IS) as its primary subcontractor.
On October 23, the agency awarded contracts to TW, Chenega SPS, and Doyon for the Northeast, West, and
DISCUSSION
Alutiiq alleges that the contracting officer's responsibility determinations regarding Chenega, Doyon, and TW were flawed insofar as the contracting officer failed to properly consider substantial evidence of price collusion among the awardees.[11] Alutiiq also protests that the agency's evaluation of Doyon's proposal under the past performance and experience factors was unreasonable, and that the agency's evaluation of Alutiiq's proposal under the small business participation factor was improper.[12] Alutiiq contends that had the agency properly evaluated offerors' proposals, it would have awarded all three contracts to Alutiiq.
Responsibility Determination Issue
Alutiiq first challenges the contracting officer's responsibility determinations regarding Doyon, TW, and Chenega SPS. Specifically, the protester contends that, in order to be considered a responsible contractor, an offeror is required to propose prices independently and without sharing price information with other competitors. Alutiiq argues that TW and Chenega SPS could not have priced their proposals independently of each other, as TW had proposed Chenega IS as its primary subcontractor. Likewise, the protester argues that Doyon and
GAO will not consider protests challenging affirmative determinations of responsibility except under limited, specified circumstances--where it is alleged that definitive responsibility criteria in the solicitation were not met or evidence is identified that raises serious concerns that, in reaching a particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated statute or regulation. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c) (2006); American Printing House for the Blind, Inc., B-298011, May 15, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 83 at 5-6; Government Contracts Consultants, B-294335,
The record indicates that the contracting officer inquired into Doyon's and
Moreover, the facts relied on by the protester here--that Doyon and Santa Fe had a common subcontractor, and that Chenega SPS and Chenega IS (TW's subcontractor) have common corporate ownership--do not constitute information that would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardees should be found responsible, as required to trigger our review under 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(c). Universal Marine & Indus. Servs., Inc., supra; Verestar Gov't Servs. Group, supra. In this regard, the requirement that competing concerns prepare their offers independently and without consultation with each other does not preclude competitors from proposing common subcontractors. McCombs Fleet Servs., B-278330,
Other Evaluation Issues
Alutiiq also protests that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal under the small business participation factor. Specifically, the protester contends that the agency's evaluation noted that Alutiiq had proposed to meet the small business participation goals set forth in the RFP. Alutiiq contends that since its proposal was of high quality and met all requirements, it should have received a rating of very good rather than satisfactory under this factor. Protest,
Our Office will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award. Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288.3, B-285288.4,
Lastly, Alutiiq protests the agency's evaluation of Doyon's proposal with regard to the past performance and experience factors. The protester contends that Doyon's proposal indicates a lack of relevant prime contractor security guard experience at military installations. Alutiiq also contends that Doyon's primary subcontractor, CIS, has had significant past performance problems on its prior security guard service contracts. By failing to take this information into account, the protester argues, the agency's rating of Doyon's proposal as very good for both past performance and experience was unreasonable. Protest,
In order for a protest to be considered by our Office, a protester must be an interested party, which means that it must have a direct economic interest in the resolution of a protest issue. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.0(a); Cattlemen's Meat
The record here clearly reflects that the SSA considered the proposals of Doyon, Chenega SPS, TW, and Alutiiq to be technically equal (i.e., no proposal contained any meaningful advantage that was not otherwise balanced by, encompassed in, or provided for in the other offerors' proposals).[14] AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision, at 18-23. Moreover, as set forth above, the proposals of Chenega SPS and TW were both lower-priced than that of Alutiiq for the
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. sect. 637(a) (2000), authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to enter into contracts with government agencies and to arrange for performance through subcontracts with socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 19.800(a). Department of Defense agencies have been delegated authority to enter into 8(a) contracts on behalf of the SBA. Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) sect. 219.800(a).
[2] The RFP established evaluation subfactors with regard to the mission capability, personnel, and past performance factors. The solicitation also set forth the Army's planned evaluation rating scheme. Specifically, the RFP stated that proposals would be rated under all factors, subfactors, and overall, using an adjectival rating system (i.e., very good, satisfactory, marginal, unacceptable, or neutral with regard to past performance), and provided definitions for each adjectival rating. RFP at 109-11.
[3] In instances where an offeror proposed for more than one geographic region, the RFP required the offeror to submit one technical proposal (all geographic regions utilized the same PWS) and a separate price proposal for each region. RFP at 101.
[4] Six additional offerors submitted proposals for the Northeast region. All received overall technical ratings of no higher than satisfactory, and all were higher-priced than TW.
[5] Six additional offerors submitted proposals for the West region. All received overall technical ratings of no higher than satisfactory, and all were higher-priced than Chenega SPS.
[6] Eight additional offerors submitted proposals for the
[7] The contracting officer found that Doyon's and
[8] The DOD Mentor-Prot-g- Program provides incentives for DOD contractors to assist prot-g- firms in enhancing their capabilities and to increase participation of such firms in government and commercial contracts. DFARS sect. 219.7100.
[9] By contrast, Chenega SPS identified Wackenhut Services Inc., and not Chenega IS or Chenega Corporation, as its primary subcontractor. AR, Tab 7, Chenega SPS's Proposal, Vol. I, Technical Proposal, at 10.
[10] Chenega SPS's president also stated that he was the sole approver of the technical and price proposals submitted by the firm, and that neither he nor his staff ever discussed any content or strategy with TW or Chenega IS employees.
[11] Alutiiq also protested that TW, Chenega SPS, and Doyon were ineligible for award because they had violated FAR sect. 52.203-2, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, Protest,
[12] Alutiiq also originally protested that: 1) the agency's evaluation of TW's and Chenega SPS's past performance and experience was improper; 2) the agency failed to properly evaluate all awardees' proposals under the mission capability and personnel evaluation factors; 3) the agency failed to properly evaluate Alutiiq's proposal under a personnel subfactor; 4) the agency failed to conduct a proper best value determinations as part of its source selection decisions; and 5) the agency's evaluation of Doyon's proposal was improper because Doyon was unable to comply with FAR sect. 52.219.14, Limitations on Subcontracting. We previously dismissed these protest issues as lacking adequate detail and factually and legally insufficient. GAO Facsimile to Parties,
[13] While it is true that CIS knew the prices at which it had offered to perform work for Doyon and Santa Fe (and that in each instance CIS's price would become a significant part of that offeror's cost), there is no evidence that CIS knew that Doyon or Santa Fe would utilize that precise price, without any mark-up or mark-down, in their proposals. There is also no evidence that CIS knew of Doyon's or
[14] The SSA also determined that the proposal of the lowest-priced, lower-technically- rated offeror, did not represent the best value to the government. AR, Tab 14, Source Selection Decision, at 23-24.