Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

2020 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 127

Comptroller General of the United States

April 15, 2020

B-418397, B-418397.2

Opinion

DECISION

ProSecure LLC, a small business 1 of Fairfax, Virginia, protests the award of a contract to CDA, Inc., doing business as MaxSent (MaxSent), a small business of Annapolis, Maryland, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 70RFPW19RWA000003, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service (FPS), for armed protective security officer services throughout Alaska. ProSecure challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals under the past performance and management approach factors, and alleges that the agency evaluated offers disparately.

We deny the protest.

BACKGROUND

The agency issued the RFP on March 14, 2019, as a small business set-aside, anticipating award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity contract for a base year and four 1-year option periods, on a best-value tradeoff basis. AR, exh. 2, RFP at 1-2, 11; Contracting Officer's Statement (COS) P 2. Offerors were advised that proposals would be evaluated under three factors: relevant past performance; management approach; and price. RFP at 441. The relevant past performance factor was more important than the management approach factor, and the non-price factors, when combined, were more important than price. Id.

Of particular importance here, the relevant past performance evaluation factor was to assess the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the identified contract references performed within the [*3]  preceding three years, either individually or in the aggregate, at the agency's discretion. Id. at 443. Each offeror could submit up to three past performance references, but for offerors that proposed a teaming arrangement, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 9.6, the RFP permitted the submission of three additional references for partners and subcontractors. Id. at 444. In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that FPS would "consider the quality of the [c]ontractor's relevant past performance." Id. at 443. Further, it provided that, "[i]n determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government [would] give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the RFP." Id. at 441-42.

The RFP included an attachment, entitled "Past Project Form," which instructed the offerors to provide detailed information for each past performance reference identified in the proposal, including the dollar value of each project, "number of posts manned," and "number of productive protective security officer hours per year." 2 RFP at 318.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 127 *

Matter of: ProSecure LLC

CORE TERMS

past performance, protester, references, offerors, magnitude, proposals, rating, annual, contracts, evaluated, joint venture, managing partner, security officer, venture's, contends, projects, small business, past projects, factors