Protest challenging various aspects of evaluation is denied. The protester challenged weaknesses assigned to it staffing plan, but GAO found the weakness warranted because the protester failed to explain its retention strategy. The protester asserted instances of disparate treatment, yet GAO found that differences in ratings were based on material differences between the proposals. The protester alleged the agency applied unstated criteria. GAO, however, found that the criteria the agency applied were logically encompassed by the stated criteria. The protester complained that the awardee’s commitment letters from key personnel did not express a “firm commitment.” GAO reasoned that the protester had not articulated what constituted a “firm commitment.” The protester objected to the past performance evaluation. GAO ruled that the agency reasonably found the awardee’s references relevant.
The Department of State issued an RFP to holders of the agency’s Worldwide Protective Services IDIQ contract. The RFP sought security services for the U.S. Embassy in the Central African Republic. Four offerors, including SOC LLC and GardaWorld Federal Services, submitted proposals. The agency concluded that SOC’s proposal was ineligible because it received an unacceptable rating under the RFP’s technical factor. Following award to GardaWorld, SOC protested.
SOC objected to a weakness assigned to its staffing plan. The agency assigned the weakness because it was concerned about SOC’s ability to retain personnel and resolve staffing challenges. SOC argued the weakness was improper because it had proposed to use the incumbent workforce, and that that this did not create reasonable performance risk.
GAO rejected SOC’s argument, finding that its proposal did not specifically articulate how the company intended to retain incumbent personnel. While SOC explained its general retention techniques, it did not set forth any specialized retention techniques tailored to its plan of retaining a high percentage of incumbent personnel.
SOC argued that in assigning this weakness to SOC’s staffing plan, the agency engaged in disparate treatment because GardaWorld also planned to retain incumbent personnel. GAO, however, found that the proposals were not unequally evaluated because there were significant differences between staffing proposals. SOC’s plan assumed a very high retention percentage of incumbent employees. GardaWorld’s plan proposed a much lower percentage. Additionally, GardaWorld articulated strategies for retaining personnel while SOC did not.
SOC also challenged a significant weakness it received for proposing to use personnel from other task orders as substitutes in emergency leave situations. SOC argued that this plan to use personnel from other task orders was not its primary strategy for addressing emergency leave, and that the agency had been too focused on this secondary plan.
But GAO found that even if SOC intended to use personnel from other task orders as a last resort, this was still its secondary option. Also, while there may have been merit in SOC’s primary option, nothing prevented the agency from assessing the secondary option. What’s more, the agency, which oversaw SOC’s other task orders under the IDIQ contract, was already concerned that the other task orders were understaffed. Using staff from already understaffed task order could create performance risk.
SOC contended that agency disparately evaluated proposals because GardaWorld also proposed to use staff from its other task orders. But GAO noted that GardaWorld had proposed to only use staff from task order that were in the midst of a drawdown.
SOC further complained about a significant weakness assigned to the company’s candidate screening program. The RFP instructed offerors to propose a plan that included a background check covering the last seven years. SOC’s provided, “State and federal criminal history (7 years).” GAO found that the agency could have reasonably interpreted this as meaning that SOC would use any state and federal criminal history investigation completed within the last seven years. This did not meet the RFP requirement because an older criminal history investigation would not cover a candidate’s recent past.
SOC alleged that the agency applied unstated criteria when it assigned its proposal a weakness for not proposing an in-county training location. GAO noted that an agency may apply evaluation considerations that are not expressly outlined in the RFP if they are reasonably and logically encompassed within the stated criteria. Here, the PWS required “in-country” training. The RFP required each offeror to describe its facilities to conduct all training, which necessarily included in-country training. Thus, although the evaluation criteria did not specifically instruct offerors to identify an in-country training facility, that requirement was reasonably encompassed by the RFP.
SOC argued that GardaWorld should have been found unacceptable under the RFP’s management factor because its letters of commitment from key personnel lacked a “firm commitment.” GAO reasoned that GardaWorld’s letters provided all the information required by the RFP. SOC had not articulated what phrasing of commitment was necessary to establish a “firm commitment.”
SOC asserted that the agency erred in evaluating GardaWorld’s past performance because the company’s past contracts, in SOC’s eyes, was not “very relevant.” GAO opined that GardaWorld had provided relevant services in it referenced contracts. GardaWorld had provided protective services, logistical support, and large scale recruitment and staffing responsibilities. The agency also considered GardaWorld’s self-identified performance concerns on those contracts and reasonably concluded that the issues were not adverse because they had been resolved during performance.
SOC is represented by Paul F. Khoury, Jon W. Burd, J. Ryan Frazee, Moshe B. Broder, and Nicole E. Giles, of Wiley Rein LLP. The intervenor, GardaWorld is represented by Paul E. Pompeo, Thomas A. Petit, and Trevor G. Schmitt of Arnold & Porter LLP. The agency is represented by Kathleen D. Martin of the Department of State. GAO attorneys Todd C. Culliton and Tania Calhoun participated in the preparation of the decision.
