Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 30

~="~

__ Ac~unt~bllll7 ¯ Inlegrlly ~llablll~

GAO

Comptroller General of the United States

U~ted States Gove~ent Acco~bfli~ Office W~n~on, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of: ¯ File: Date: DECISION
NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to The Ravens Group, LLC by the Department of the Army under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0017. Subsequent to the filing of this protest, the agency granted the relief requested, which rendered the protest academic. Since it is not our practice to consider academic questions, the protest is dismissed. Dvna-Air Eng'g Corp., B-278037, Nov.7, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 132. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. B-296741.2 Xugust 4, 2005

Exhibit 5

271

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 2 of 30

Acr, ountablllly ~ Integrlly ~ Rel[a~ll~

GA0

U~ted S~te~ Gover~ent Accguntab~ O~ce

W~n~on, DC 20548

Ruth Eo Ganister, Esq. Rosenthal and Ganister Major Peter H. Tran Depart~xmnt of the Army August 8, 2005
File: B-296914 Protester: OlympusBuilding Services, Inc. Agency: Department of the Army Solicitation No.: HHM402-05-0017

CONFIRMATION OF WITHDRAWAL The protest identified above has been withdrawn. We have closed our file without further action. -For the Senior Associate General Counsel

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:
GAO Attorney: Jacqueline Maeder; 202-512-9710 Case Status Calls: 202-512-5436; Fax Number: 202-512-9749

Exhibit

272

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Document 15-12 Filed 05/12/2007 Page 3 of 30 Page AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code
2. Amendment!Modification No. 0005 f" ~.- --ued By 'a Contracting Activity : AE-2 Boiling AFB, Bldg. 6000 Washington, D.C. 20340-5100
3. Effective Date Aug l 1, 2005 Code HHQ402

of Pages

4. Requisition/Purchase Req. No. 44810114Z/05 7. Administered By (It' other than Item 6) Virginia Contracting Activity Building 6000 Washington, DC 20340-5100 ATFN: DIAC, AE-2

12 5. Project No. (if applicable)
Code ZD50

8. Name and Address of Contractor (No., Street, County, and Zip Code)

{X~ 9A. Amendment of Solicitation No.

HHM402-05-R-0017
X 19B" Date (See Item 11)

I Apr 14, 2005
10A. Modification of Contract/Order No.

I
Code

101B. Date (Se~

~ Facility Code 11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

LXJ The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers U is extended L~J is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESU IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by vidue of this amendment you desire to Change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or tetter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to |he solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified. 12. Accounting and Appropriation Data (if required) 13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACT/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14. Jr'his change order is issued pursuant to: (Specify authority) The changes set forth in item 14 are made in the Contract Order No. ~n item 10A. B. T he above numbered ContractJOrder is modified to reflect the administrative changes (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) Set foudh item 14, pursuant to the authority of FAR 43.103 (b) C. This supplemental agreement is entered into pursuant to authority of: D. Other (Specify type of modification and authority)

l

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor I I X [. I required sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office. - is not ' is to 14. Des'cdption of Amendment/Modification (OrganizedbyUCFsectionheadings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

SEE PAGE 2

273
Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 15A. Name and Title of Signer (Type orPrint) 16A. Name and title of Contracting Officer (Type or Print)

-15L

.{rector/Offeror ~ n/

] 15C.

Date Signed

16B. United States of America

16C. Date Signed

(~ign~ture of person,, authorized, to si NSN 7540-01-152-8070 PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

(~,i~nature of Contractin~ Officer)

Exhibit 7

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 OFR) 53.243

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 30

The Purpose of this modification is to accomplish the following: I..___a'ovide all offerors with notice that the Government intends to re-evaluate all technical proposals sty_ ~ed May 13, 2005 in reference to HHM402-05-R-0017. 2. To inform all offerors that technical evaluations will commence on 22 Aug 2005.

3. Once proposals have been re-evaluated, award may be made without discussions. If the Agency determines that discussions are warranted, a competitive range will be established and discussions will be conducted wit offerors within the range. Upon completion of discussion, offerors within the colnpetetive range will be pro the opportunity to subnfit final revised proposals. 4. Please submit all questions regarding this amend~nent in writing to [email protected].

1-I~402-05-R-0017 ~ NO. 0002

.Page - 2

274

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 5 of 30

VIRGINIA CONTRACTING ACTIVITY
200 MACDILLBLVD., BLOG 6000 BOLLING AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100

U-0348/AE-2A

NOV 0 2005

Ravens Group Attn: Joe N, Ballard, President 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 706 Washington, DC 20004
SUBJECT: Re-Evaluation of HHM402-05-R-0017 Custodial/Janitorial Services

Dear Sir:
In Response to a protest with the GAO, the Agency decided on August 2, 2005 to re-evaluate all the proposals originally submitted on RFP HHM402-05-R-0017. We ha,ce completed our evaluation of your Proposal, dated 13 May 2005. The Government has determined that further discussions are necessary. Therefore a competitive range was established. Your proposal is within the competitive range, and this letter is being forwarded to advise you of the following:

1. Weaknesses and deficiencies in the proposal. 2. Provide guidance for preparing and submitting a final revised proposal. The following deficiencies and weaknesses were identified: Deficiencies: No deficiencies were noted: Weaknesses: The .Government noted several weaknesses in your proposal. The following recommendations are provided. Your proposal should clearly present: (1) A specific and detailed transition plan for the DIAC Expansion. (2) A plan how you will be prepared to handle requirements of the conference rooms and conference center in the DIAC Expansion. (3) A plan and schedule addressing the custodial servicing of conference rooms, classrooms, and conference center. (4) A plan detailing how supplies, tools, and equipment will be provided at contract start date and detailing how supplies, tools, and equipment will be maintained.

Exhibit 8

275

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 30

(5) An explanation of how the staffing numbers were derived using the methodology cited (BSCAI standards for cleaning government office space) to demonstrate (providing formulas and computations for what work needs to be done, when, by who, and how long it will take) that appropriate personnel and equipment will be positioned efficiently to carry out the requirements from contract start date. (6) A more detailed transition plan for the DIAC and DIAC Expansion. (7) A more detailed incentive plan addressing retention of "6" level employees. (8) Demonstrate past performance experience in performing similar work to that described in the Statement of Objectives (Provide evidence of specific experience in performing similar work to the custodial servicing the DIAC and DIAC Expansion requires). (9) Demonstrate experience in specific contracts of this type. NOTE: for (8) and (9) current performance at the DIAC is admissible. (10) Complete resumes for management personnel to include on-site supervisor personnel. (11) A specific and detailed plan to retrain current employees. If you are still interested in competing for this procurement, you are afforded the opportunity to submit your Best and Final Offer (BAFO). The closing date for this submission has been established as 1700 EST, 22 November 2005. Please sub,nit an original and 3 copies to the following address: MAIL: Virginia Contracting Activity ATTN: AE2A, Juanita Jones Bldg 6000, Bolling AFB Washington, D.C. 20340-5100 All technical and/or cost revisions to your proposals must be fully documented and accompanied by an index indicating the location and nature of the changes. You are encouraged to submit changes in the form of clearly marked replacement pages. BAFO's received at DIA after the specified time and date shall be treated as a late proposal in accordance with provisions "LATE SUBMISSIONS, MODIFICATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSAL" (far 52.215-10). Telegrams and facsimile transmissions are NOT AUTHORIZED.

After the specified closing date, no further information will be furnished to any offeror until an award has been made.
Sincerely,

Cheon

Contracting Officer

276

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 30

DEFENSE INTELi,IGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisition E×ecutive Building 6000, Boiling AFB Was]~ington, D.C. 20340-5100

April 3, 2006
U-2053/AE-2A

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJPeter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, Contrac~ Appeals Division; Team I, ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Stuar~ Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1837 Subject: B-296741.3; Protest ol~The R, avens Group, Inc. Contractha~.Officer's Notice of Corrective Action RFP HHM402-05-R-00I 7 (the "Solicitation") for the procurement ol~janitorial and cus~.odial services for the Defense lr~telligencc Analysis Center (DIAC) and its new expan.sion building was issued on 14.April 2005. The Solicitation closed on 13 May 2005. Nine offers were received in response to the Solicitation. Award was madc m The Rover, s Group, LLC, on 17 June 2005. On 12 July 2005 arid 19 July 2005, twe separate protests were filed with thc GAO (B-296741.2 and B-296914). The Agency notified GAO that it intended to take corrective action on 3 AugUst 2005. Consistent with the notice to GAO, the Agency re-evaluated the proposals, conducted discussions and allowed offerorS the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions. Frolri tlae re-evaluatiol3, a new award was made ~o Rowe Contracting Service, Inc. on 22 Mm-ch 2006. On 29 March 2006, GAO notified the Agency that Ravens Group had filed a protest. On 31 March 2006, Rowe was notified el'the protest and the required stay of pertbrmance. The Government has rc,d-cwed the allegations contained in the pro~est filed by Ravens Group. Although the protest is not clearly meritorious, the Agency has decidcd to take the following con'ectivc action. The Agency intends to conduct a new source selection and a new Source Selection Decision will be issued. If after file new source selection is conducted and a contractor other thin3 Rowe is deemed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract fbr the remi~der of the services required,

GUY A. TORRES Contracting O [fleer

277
Exhibit 9 TOTRL P.e2

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 30

I Accountability ° Inlegrlty - Reliability

Comptroller Genera~ of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of: The Ravens Group, Inc.

File:
Date:

B-296741.3
April 6, 2006

DECISION
The Ravens Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services by the Defense Intelligence Agency under solicitation HHM402-05-R-0017. We view the protest as academic because the agency has decided to reconsider the award decision.

The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in ContracLing Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556 (2000), amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 326, 118 Star. 1811 (2004). Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 4.
The Government Accountabilit:y Office will not consider a protest where the issue presented has no practical consequences with regard to an existing federal government procuremen.t, and thus is of purely academic interest. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

Exhibit 10

278

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 9 of 30

Accountability " Inleg,ity - R~llablllty

GAO

Comptroller Genera] of the United States

United States Government Accountab~ty Office

Wa~l~ngton, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of'. The Ravens Group, Inc.

File:
Date:

B-296741.4
April 17, 2006

DECISION
The Ravens Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. by the Defense Intelligence Agency under solicitation HHM402-05-R0017. We view the protest as academic because the agency has decided to reconsider the award decision. The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556 (2000), amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 326, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004). Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar, 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 4. ~.

The Government Accountabilit~y Office will not consider a protest where the issue presented has no practical consequences with regard to an existing federal government procurement, and thus is of purely academic interest. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

Exhibit 11

279

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 10 of 30

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WAS['IINGTON, D.C. 203~0-

U-2053/AE-2A

May 15, 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, FIQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agertcy, Contract Appeals Division, Team I, ATTN:/ALS-CAI, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203~ 1837 Subject: B-296741.5; Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Con, t,r, actinz Offiee~r'~ Statement !n response to GAO's request for clarification of the Contracting officer's Notice of Corrective Action, dated April 3, 2006, the following is provided. As the April 3, 2006 Notice of Corrective Action states,
The Agency intends to conduct a neW source selection and a new Source Selection Decision will be issued. If after the new source s~lection is conducted arid a contractor other than Rowe is deemed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the rem.l.nder of the services required.

Ttie Agency simply intends to conduct a new source selection. The Agency will not be conducting a new technical evaluation of proposals or accepting revised proposals from any offerors. The new source selection will be based on the offerors' previously submitted ¯ proposals, which does not include a review of any Joint Personnel Adjudication SyStem " ("JPAS") files. The YPAS is a database managed by the DoD Agency Central Adjudication Facilities and is used to confirm the clearance validity 0f contractor persormel_ The JPAS is a contract administration tool that is not used during the procurement process.

280
Exhibit 12 TOTAL

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 11 of 30

Accounteblllty * Int~jrlly * Relhzbll|ty

GAO

Comptroller General of the United States

United S~tes Gove~ent Acco~bili~ Office W~on, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of: The Ravens Group
File: Date: DECISION The Ravens Group protests the award of a contract to Rowe Conlxacting Services, Inc., under Defense Intelhgence Agency (DIA) request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0017, for janitorial and custodial services. We dismiss the protest. The sohcitation, issued on April 14, 2005, provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering cost and technical factors. On June 28, DIA made award to Ravens. On June 29, NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. protested the award to our Office. On August 2, DIA decided to take corrective action in response to the NOSLOT protest by allowing offerors to submit final proposal revisions, reevaluating the proposals and making a new best value determination. As a result, our Office dismissed NOSLOT's protest 03-296741.2, Aug. 4, 2005). Following the submission of revised proposals and the reevaluation, DIA selected Rowe for award. Ravens filed a protest in our Office challenging that decision (B-296741.3; B-296741.4). The agency again proposed corrective action, this time in the form of reconsidering the award decision; accordingly, we dismissed Ravens's protest. DIA is currently implementing the proposed corrective action.

B-296741o5; B-296741.6
May 19, 2006

Ravens protests certain actions by Rowe that allegedly occurred after DIA selected Rowe for award following the NOSLOT protest. Specifically, Ravens claims that Rowe obtained access to the automated system the Department of Defense uses to maintain information regarding its employees and contractors (JPAS), and manipulated the data to make it appear that Ravens's personnel were Rowe employees, all without the knowledge of Ravens or the personnel involved. Ravens further asserts that, while its initial protest was pending in our Office, Rowe obtained information about Ravens's proposal by making payments to Ravens employees. According to Ravens, these actions compromised the procurement and warrant eliminating Rowe from the competition.

Exhibit 13

281

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 12 of 30

Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 4. Toward this end, our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.1(c)(4) and (f) (2006), require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for protest, and the grounds stated be legally sufficient. These requirements contemplate that protesters will provide, at a minimum, eitlier allegations or evidence sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood that the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action. Id. Ravens's assertions do not constitute a valid basis of protest because, even if we found them meritorious, they would not provide a basis for sustaining the protest. In this regard, prejudice is an essential element of any viable protest and, even where the record establishes a procurement deficiency, we will sustain a protest only where the deficiency resulted in competitive prejudice to the protester. See Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., B-285144, July 6, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 108 at 3. Ravens has not demonstrated compdtitive prejudice here. Proposals were submitted prior to the alleged actions about which Ravens complains, and DIA's proposed corrective action is limited to reconsidering its award decision based on the proposals as already submitted; DIA will not request new or revised proposals, and will not reevaluate the proposals but, rather, will only review the evaluations that followed NOSLOT's protest and the award to Rowe, and make a new best value determination. Since the new award decision will be based on the proposals as submitted before Rowe's alleged improper actions, Rowe will be unable to gain any competitive advantage from those actions. It follows that Ravens was not competitively prejudiced, and that there would be no basis for sustaining the protest?
The protest is dismissed.

Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

~ Ravens irrationally asserts that the only way to eliminate competitive harm to Ravens is to allow offerors to submit revised proposals. If Ravens's allegations are correct, Rowe would potentially benefit from its actions if DIA solicits revised proposals. Thus, DIA's plan not to allow offerors to submit revised proposals is the appropriate way to protect Ravens from competitive harm.'

Page 2

B-296741.5; B-296741.6

282

07/~4/2006 15:22 FAX

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Document 15-12 2025129749

GA0 PL DIV

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 13 of 30
~002/004

GAO
United States Government Accountabilit~r Office Washington, DC 20548

Comptroller General of the United States

Decision
Matter of: The Ravens Group, Inc.-Reconsideration File: Date: ' B-296741.7 JLfly 14, 2006

DECISION
The Ravens Group, Inc. requests reconsideration of our May 16, 2006 dismissal (B-296741.5, B-296741,6) of its protest regarding request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0017, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial and custodial services. We deny the request.

The solicitation was issued on April 14, 2005, and DIA made award to Ravens on June 28. On June 29, NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. challenged the award in a protest filed in our Office. We dismissed the protest on August 4 (B-296741.2), after DIA notified our Office that it intended to take corrective action. In implementing the corrective action, DIA reevaluated the proposals it had received, conducted discussions, received and evaluated final proposal revisions, evaluated the revised proposals, and selected Rowe Contracting Services for award on March 22, 2006. Ravens protested the award decision on March 27 and April 6. We dismissed those protests (B-296741.3, B-296741.4) as academic on April 6 and April 17, respectively, after the agency again proposed corrective action, this time in the form of reconsidering the award decision. While DIA was implementing the second round of corrective action, Ravens filed two additional protests (B-296741.5, B-296741.6), in which it alleged that Rowe had improperly obtained access to the automated system (JPAS) the Department of Defense uses to maln~ information regarding its employees and contractors, and manipulated data to make it appear that Ravens's personnel were Rowe employees. Ravens further asserted that, while its initial protest was pending in our Office, Rowe improperly obtained information about Ravens's proposal by making payments to Ravens employees. Ravens argued that these actions compromised the procurement and required that Rowe be eliminated from the competition. We dismissed the protests on May 19 for failure to state a valid protest basis, because the proposals on

Exhibit 14

283

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB 07/~4/2006 15:23 FAX 2025129749Document 15-12 DIVFiled GAO PL

05/12/2007

Page 14 of 30

~003/004

which the award to Rowe was based were submitted prior to the actions about which Ravens was complaix~ing. Since DIA's proposed corrective action was to be based on a reevaluation of those same proposals, and Rowe therefore would be unable to use any of the allegedly improperly acquired information to gain a competitive advantage, we concluded, Ravens would not be competitively prejudiced even if its allegations were correct. Ravens requests that we reconsider our decision. To obtain reconsideration, the requesting party either must show that our prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants re~cersal or modification of the decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a) (2006). We will not reconsider a decision where the request is b.ased on information that was available to the requester and could have been presented during our initial consideration of the protest. Department of Commerce-Recon., B-294121.5, Apr. 12, 2005, 2005 CPD ¶ 64; Specialty Marine, Inc.-Recon, B-292053.2, July 29, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 135 at 3 n.2. Ravens argues that our decision is based on errors of factand law because at least some of Rowe's allegedly improper conduct took place while NOSLOT's protest was pending, that is, prior to the time that offerors submitted their revised proposals. Thus, Ravens ass.errs, our decision wrongly concluded that the new evaluation and award decision will be based on proposals submitted before Rowe's improper conduct. To support this argument, Ravens points to sworn statements by Ravens employees that were submitted with Ravens's April 6 protest. Ravens maintains that these statements recount how, on April 3, 2006~ and March 27, 2006, respectively, a Rowe official told these Ravens employees that Rowe received the award following the original corrective action because Rowe submitted a work schedule that was based on the schedule that Ravens submitted with its initial proposal. 2 Ravens argues that these statements show both that Rowe obtained i~fformation-Ravens's 1 This statement actually indicates that the conversation took place on April 3, 2005. However, since this is before the solicitation was issued, it appears that the date in the statement is a typographical error. ~ Ravens's reconsideration request includes another sworn statement by this employee, dated June 1, 2006, in which the employee now recounts that during the April 3 communication the Rowe official admitted having certain information about Ravens's proposal while the agency was implementing the corrective action in response to the NOSLOT protest, that is, before final proposal revisions (FPR) were submitted. This conversation allegedly took place on April 3, however, so that the information was available on Ap .ril 6, when Ravens first protested Rowe's allegedly improper conduct. Since the information was not presented at that t~me, it cannot now be used to form the basis of a reconsideration request. Department of Commerce-Recon., su_qp_x_~ Specialty Marine, Inc..-Recon., su~.

Page 2

B-296741.7

284

0~/i4/2006 15:23 FAX

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Document 15-12 DIV Filed 05/12/2007 2025129749 GAO PL

Page 15 of 30

~004/004

work schedule-from Ravens's proposal before Rowe submi~ed its final proposal revision, and that Rowe used the information in its fmal proposal revision to win the award. Ravens mischaracterizes the Ravens employee's statements. The first statement decla~'es, in relevant part, that "[the Rowe representative] informed me that during the initial bid The Ravens Group submitted a schedule whereas his company did not submit one." Similarly, the second statement recounts, in relevant part, that "[the Rowe representative stated] the only re .ason he did not win the origia~al bid was because The Ravens Group submitted a work schedule and he did not." These statements do not indicate that the Rowe official stated that its employees viewed Ravens's work schedule before, or even after, Rowe submitted its FPR, or stated that the firm's work schedule was based on Ravens's. Further in this regard, Ravens stated in its April 6 protest that its employees admitted that Rowe had paid them for information regarding Ravens's schedule and employees "during the pendency of the Ravens Group's Protest." 3 Ravens's protests, as discussed above, were submitted after Rowe received the contract award and, therefore, after Rowe's FPR had been submitted. We conclude that Ravens has not demonstrated that our decision was based on an error of fact or law.
The request for reconsideration is denied.

Gary L. Kepplinger General Counsel

~ Ravens also reiterates its argument that we should require the agency to eliminate Rowe f~om the competition based on its allegedly improper business practices -accessing the JPAS database and paying Ravens's employees for information. However, this constitutes no more than disagreement with our conclusion that these actions did not cause any competitive harm to Ravens. Accordingly, this argument provides no basis for us to reconsider the decision. See HK Sys., Inc.,Protest and Recon., B-291647.6, B-291647.7, Aug. 29, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 159.

Page 3

B-296741.7

285

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 16 of 30

VIRGINIA CONTRACTING ACTIVITY
200 MACDILL BLVD., BLDG 6000 BOLUNG AIR FORCE BASE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100

U-00589/AE-2A Mr. Joseph Ballard, Presiden~ The Ravens Group, LLC 1101 Pelmsylvania Avenue, N.W. 6th Floor Washington, DC 20004 Dear Mr. Ballard:

SEP 1 3 2006

Your firm responded to this Agency's Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Janitorial/Custodial Services for the Defense Intelligence Agency, Bolling AFB, ¯ Washington, DC. The RFP was issued to twenty (20) contractors and only nine (9) proposals were received. A competitive range was established and, a result, there were five (5) offerors that qualified within the competitive range. Upon careful reconsideration by the new Source Selection Authority, the following offeror's proposal was Selected as being the best value to the Govermnent, price and other factors considered: NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. 303 Post Office Road, Suite B-3 Waldorf, MD 20602 Total price including the base period and all options --- $19,401,698.00 If you desire a debriefing; please submit your request via fax to Juanita Jones at (202) 231-2831 within three (3) calendar days from receipt of this letter. The Government will provide a written debriefing. Your proposal indicated that considerable effort was involved in its preparation and DIA appreciates .your effort. Sincerely,

Exhibit 15

286

10/04/06

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

WED 11:02 FAX 703 696 1537

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 17 of 30

TX/RX NO INCOMPLETE TX/RX TRANSACTION OK

4752 992025129749 997032567883 997036974276 992022312831

(2) (3) (4)
ERROR

HQ, U.S. ARMY LITIGATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT APPEALS DIVISION, USALSA

901 N. STUART STREET, SUITE 500

ARL!NGTON, VA 22203-1837
Tracy. Williams @ hqda.army.mil

(703) 696-2850 phone
(703) 696-1537fax

Date:
Re:

October 4, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-2967~11.8) Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

From:

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 35

Name
Daryle Jordan Robert Berry Cheong Chon

Firm/Agency GAO -Protester DIA on~'acting Officer

Phone No. .202512703~56-7754 " 703-697-3945 202-23~07~

Fax No.
202-512-9749 703-256.7883 ,7037697.4276 ..... 202-231-2831

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the Agency's Motion to Dismiss the above referenced protest. If transmission problems Occur, please contact Ms. Tracy Williams, (703) 696-2850, DSN: 426-2850. Direct all other questionsto Major Peter Tran, Trial Attorney at 703-696.2825 or DSN 426-2825,

Confidenl~ality Notice

287

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 18 of 30

HQ, [LS. ARMY LITIGATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT APPEALS DIVISION, USALSA 901 N. STUART STREET, SUITE 500 ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1837 Tracy. [email protected] (703) 696-2850 phone (703) 696-1537fax

Date: Re: From:

October 4, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.8) Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 35
Name

Firm/Agency GAO Protester

Phone No.
.202-512703-256-7754 703-697-3945 202-231-8077

Fax No. 202-512-9749 703-256-7883 703-697-4276 202-231-2831

Mary Curcio Daryle Jordan Robe~Berry CheongChon

DIA
Contracting Officer

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the Agency's Motion to Dismiss the above referenced protest, if transmission problems occur, please contact Ms. Tracy Williams, (703) 696-2850, DSN: 426-2850. Direct all other questions to Major Peter Tran, Trial Attorney at 703-696-2825 or DSN 426-2825.

Confidentiality Notice

This facsimile transmission and/or the documents accompanying it may contain confidential information belonging to tile sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege, The information is inteuded only for the use of tile individual or entity named above. If you are not tile intended recipient, you are hereby notified that aay disclosure, copying, distribution or tbe taking of any action in reliance on the contents of tiffs information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately by telephone or arrange the retnrn of documents.

288

From:Parr ick/tqenry LLP

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

708 256 7888

Filed 05/12/2007

10/18/2006 20:44 #087 P,O01

Page 19 of 30

Patrick Henry LLP
7619 Little River Turnpike

Suite 340 Annandale, Virginia 22003 (703) 256-7754
Fax: (703) 256-7883

FAX COVER SHEET
FROM: FAX No. PHONE No. C1 lent/Matter: Date: Daryle A. Jordan 703.256.7883 703.256.7754 The Ravens Group, Inc. October l3,2006

DOCUMENTS Objection to DIA's October 4, 2006, Letter Protest No. B-296741.8

NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover)*
Four (4)

PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME Ms. Mary G. Curcio, Office of the General Counsel, GAO ORGANIZATION PHONE # Procurement Law Control 202.512.4788 FAX #

202.512.9749
703.696.1537 301.577.9097

Group U.S. Army Legal Services 703.696.2825 Agency 301.577.8585 The Ravens Group

Major Peter H. Tran, Trial Attorney Mr. Joe Bailard COMMENTS:

The it~hrmation contained in this facsimile message is it~'ormation protected by attorney-client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. It is intended onlyfbr the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by vh'tue of thL~ having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facshnile is not the n c tt n dtstt tbulton ~Ao~..~4j~.~j~_-.~e( c/ff~.munication is strictly prohibited. If you nave r~ea tnis cam n nic " " , p , y notify us &v telephone and return the original message to Its at the above address via U.S. Postal See'vice.

289

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 20 of 30

703 256 7888

10/]8/2006 20:45 #087 P.0O2

HEN RY

7619 Little River Turnpike Suite 340 Annandale, VA 22003 Tel: 703,256.7754 Fax: 703.256.7883

October 13, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE Office of the General Counsel U.S. Government Accountability Ofrice 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Attention: Ms. Mary G. Curcio Senior Attorney Procurement Law Control Group
Protest No. B-296741.8 Defense Intelligence Agency Objection to DIA's O~tober 4~ 2.006~ Letter

I~ICI4ARD E. PATRICK adrnilted in VA, DC

admitted in VA, OC. PA, Ml

admitted ;n MD. DC. NY~ OH ])ARYLE A, JOI~DAN admiffe~ in VA. D~ PA

__Of ,Counsel

Dear Ms. Curcio: The Ravens Group, Inc. ("Ravens Group") hereby responds to the Defense Intelligence Agency's ('°DIA" or the "Agency") October 4~ 2006, letter, requesting summary dismissal of the above-referenced protest. As discussed below, D1A makes several significant misstatemegts of fact, which refute its request for summary dismissal. Accordingly, GAG should deny DIA's request. First, DIA suggests that The Ravens Group should have asserted that the original award was proper when NOSLOT protested on June 27, 2005, and July 8, 2005. DIA, however, ignores the important fact that DIA did not initially notify The Ravens Group of either of the aforementioned protests. Indeed, DIA did not notify The Ravens Group of the protests until August 1 l, 2005, several weeks after NOSLOT filed its protests and after DIA decided to take corrective action. Thus, as a result of DIA!s failure to notify The Ravens Group of the protests, The Ravens Group was deprived of an important procedural right to which it was entitled under the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

MALtK N. admitted in VA, F.JC USPTO R~gi~l~arion El.TON I:~ NORtqAN

hI.".I~YI,A NI} OI:FICf~ 5900 Princess Garden Parkway Suite 640 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: 240,296.3488 Fax: 240.296.3487

www.patrickhenry.net

290

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 21 of 30

708 256 7888

]0/]3/2006 20:45 #087 P,O08

General Accountability Office October 13, 2006 Page 2 Additionally, DIA alleges that The Ravens Group's protest does not '~state a basis for review by GAO.'" In particular, DIA states that The Ravens Group should "provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sufficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood of the protester's claim of improper agency action." Our contention--that the initial award to The Ravens Group was proper; that there was no impropriety in lhe initial award to The Ravens Group; and, therefore, the decision to terminate The Ravens Group's contract was not.justified-is supported by ample evidence, including the undeniable fact that DIA determined on two (2) occasions, that The Ravens Group provided the "best value" to the Government. First, it is undisputed that DIA determined The Ravens Group to be the "best value" when it originally awarded the contract to The Ravens Group. DIA challenges our contention-that D1A determined The Ravens Group to be the "best value" a second time when it exercised the option; however, it is a fact, that the FAR requires an agency to make such a determination before exercising an option. Since DIA exercised the option, and did not express any exception ~o the required finding, it is certainly reasonable to assume that DIA contracting officials followed the law and made the required finding prior to exercising the option. Thus, DIA's assertion, that we have presented no evidence, is simply wrong. Moreover, DIA's suggestion that it had no other alternative and was therefore somehow coerced into exercising the option with The Ravens Group, is groundless. Counsel knows that DIA had numerous options at its discretion, to meet the agency's contractual needs while taking corrective action. DIA also erroneously contends that "Protester's simPle, unsupported assertion amounts to nothing more than a mere disagreement with the Agency's source selection." To the contrary, the problem with this procurement is the Agency's disagreement with its own source selection. Using the same solicitation, applying the same evaluation factors, and evaluating the same contractors, the agency has nonetheless, determined that three (3) different contractors presented the "best value" to the Government. Thus, DIA's source selection ipso.fcwto is unreasonable.

Finally, DIA's reasoning, that our protest is untimely because "Protester was silent during the period between the August 2, 2005, notice and the March 22, 2006, award to Rowe," is also fatally flawed. As discussed above and in The Ravens Group's March 23, 2006, protest, due to the Agency's negligence, The Ravens Group was not timely notified of NOSLOT's protests, and did not receive notice until August 11,2005, after the Agency had already notified GAO of its intent to take corrective action.

www.patrickhenry.net

291

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB ,

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 22 of 30

From:Patricl
708 256 7888

10/18/2006 20:45 #087 P.O04

General Accountability Office October 13, 2006 Page 3 Based on the above, GAO should deny DIA's request and order D1A to file an Agency Report. Respect fully/ubmitted,

~//
ris!! forT. '

cc:

Major Peter Tran, Esq.

www.patrickhenry.net

292

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
04/28/2007 18"58 FAX 2025128749

Document 15-12
8AO PL DIV

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 23 of 30
~002/009

~GAO
United Sta~es Govenlm~nt Ac¢ottuutbifi~y Office

Comptroller General o~ the United States

Washington, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of." File: Date; The Ravens Group, Inc. B-296741.8 December 6, 2006

DECISION
The Ravens Group, Inc, protests the award of a contract to NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. under the Defense Intelligence Agency solicitation No. HHM 402.05-R0017. We view the protest as academic because DIA has decided to terminate NOSLOT's contract and make a new award determination. The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest' provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556 (2000), amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authoriza12on Act ~or Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108~375, § 326, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004). Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Re.r~e~rch Servs,, B~278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 4. The Government Accountability Office will not consider a protest where the issue presented has no practical consequences with regard to an existing federal government procurement, and thus is of purely academic interest. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed. ¯ Gary L. Kepplinger General Counsel

293

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 24 of 30

PRIVILEGED AND CONF~ENTIAL
To: CheongJ, Chon From; Fax Number: (20~). ~31~2831

Telephone ,Number: 052 Pages (including cover): 053"07.002 ....... "7~''

Kenneth B. Weckstein September 25, 2006

Date:

Comments:

PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCEWITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Protected Information To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With United States Court of Federal Claims Protective Order
NOTICE OF PRWILEGE AN;} CONR1)ENTIALI'W THIS TI~LS'COPY 1$ PRIVILEGE'D AND CON'FIDE-'NT~AL. IT IS INTE'NDF~D SOLELY FOR q~E ADDR~S~, ANY ~AUTHORrZBD R~PRODU~ION, DI,STRIB UTION OK THE T~KING OF ANY A~ON ~ KELIANC£ ON THE CONTEN~ OF ~.IlS INFORMATION I~ PROHIBI~D. (F YOU RECEIVED THIS T£LECOPY ~ ERROR, PLGASE NOTIFY US ~D[A'~LY,

T~;IS COMMUNIC~xTION DOES NOT CONFORM TO TIlE 8TANDARDS OF A COnRaD OPTION W)TH~ THE ~ANING OF CIRCULAR ~0 ISSUED BE US~, ~m WAS NOT INTENDED OR WR~ TO B~ USED, FOR TH~ PIJR~ OF AVOIDING ~ED flTAT~ T~ PENAI~TI~S, rN ADDITION, AMY T~ ADvIc~ CONTA~ED ~ THiS C~M~CATION MAY MOT B~ USeD TO P~OM~E, MA~K~ O~ ~OMM~D A T~NSA~ION TO ANgeR P~SON.

DC:74161 IV1

294

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 25 of 30

September 25, 2006

VIA FACSIMILE Anthony Gambea, Esquire General Counsel 'Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Attn: Procurement Law Control Group PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE'DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

Re: Protest of Rowe Cemracting Services, inc. Under RFP HHM402-05-R-O017 Dear Mr. Gamboa: Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. ("RoyCe"),~ through its undersigned counsel, files this protest against the selection decisidn of the Virginia Contracting Activity ("Government" or "Agency") tb award a contract for Janitorial/Custodial Services for thi~ Defense Intelligence Agency ("DIA"), Boiling.Air Force Base, Washington, DC, to NOSLOTCleaning Services, Inc. ("NoSlot") under the reference~d solicitation ("RFP" or

~ Rowe's address is 5150 Hwy 22, SU~Ie C-11, Mandeville, LA 704.71. Rowe's telephone and fax numbers are (985) 84.~-2217 end (98~) 845-2337. The em=ll adc/res~ of Mr, Scott Rowe, the corporate . officer in charge of this matter, is roweF..on.!~b~!!~oqth~n~et.

295

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 26 of 30

A'nthony Gamboa, Esquire September 25, 2006 Page 2

"Solicitation").2 As discussed in more detail below, the selection decision was unreasonable and arbitrary and oontrary to the Solicitation. A copy of this protest will be furnished to the contracting officer within one day of filing with GAO, I. , ROWE IS AN INTERESTED PARTY. Rowe is an interested party for the purpose of this, protest because Rowe was an actual offeror who previously was awarded the contract under this Solicitation, On information and belief, Rowe also was the offeror tl'iat was rated as having submitted the highest rated technical prbposal and the lowest price proposal Specifically, the Agency evaluated Rowe as "Excellent" in technical, and "Excellent" in past performance, and as having the lowe.4t price proposal. But for DIA's arbitrary actions, ' Rowe would have been selected (a second time) for award. Accordingly, Rowe's direct economic interest is affected by the contemplated award of a ¢ontradt to NoSier. 4 C.F.IR. § 21.0(a). ii. ROWE'S PROTEST iS TIMidLY. Rowe received Its wdtten debriefing from the Agency on September 15, 2006, Accordingly, this protest is timely filed. 4, C.F:R. § 21.2(a)(2) ("the initial protest shall not be filed before the debriefing date offered the protester, but shall be filed not later than 10 days after the date on which the debriefing is held.") ,,

~ The Contracting Officer is Cheong Chert. Her telephone number Is (202) 231,841 lB.. Her fax number is (202) 23~-2831, Her email address is ~,

296

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 27 of 30

Anthony Gamboa, Esquire September 25, 2006 Page3

PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCOR~DANCE WITH GOVERNMENT.ACCOUNTABILITY OFFIC.E PROTECTIVE ORD.,ER

!11.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND, The History of the Procurement: The referenced procurement has been the subject of a sodas of ~rotests and

agency corrective actions. The solicitation first was issued on or about April 14, 2005. On June 28, 2005, award was made to The Ravens Group ("Ravens"), NoSIot .protested that award on June 29, 2005, The Agency took corrective actior~ in response to the NoSIot protest, As part of that corrective action, offerors were afforded the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions, the Agency reevaluated the final proposals and made a new "best value" award determination, As, a result of the Agency's corrective action, the No,Slot protest was dismissed by GAO. Subsequently, Rowe was selected for award. And, the Agency made contract award to Rowe on or abodt March 23, 2006. Ravens s0bsequently filed a protest wi[h the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") challenging the selection of Rowe. That protest was dismissed by GA(~, after the Agency p._r..oposed corrective action. As its corrective action, the Agency specifically advised GAO: The Agency simply intends to conduct a new source selection. The Agency will not be conducting a new technical evaluation of proposals or accepting revised proposals from any offerors, The new source selection wilt be based on the offerors' previously submitted proposals, which does not include a review of any Joint Personne! Adjudication Syste~ ("JPAS") flies. See Memorandum from Guy A. Tortes, dated May 15, 2006. attached to faz from Peter H. Tran to Ms, Mary G, Curcio, dated May 16, 2006, Included hereto as Exhibit 1 (emphasis added),

297

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 28 of 30

Anthony Gamboa, Esquire, September 25, :2006 Page 4

PROTECTED ,MATERIAL TO ,BE DISCLOSED

ONLY, IN A¢¢O~.D~-NCE wrrH,

GOVERNMENT.ACCOUNTABILITY

Even though the coritract was awarded to Rowe, to date, Ravens (not Rowe) has been performing the work covered by the Solicitation. The Solicitation: As noted, the Soficitation sought a contractor to provide j~nitorial/c'ustodial services at the DIA facility at Boiling Air Force Base in Washington, DC, DIA's "mission is to provide timely, objective and cogent military intelligence to war fighters, defense ,planners, and defense and national security policymakers." Solicitation, at 6, According to the Solicitation, DIA's visitors "include high level members of the intelligence commun}ty, high ranking military off'i¢ials, [C]ongressmen, senators and ambassadors from other nat(ons." Id. The janitoria!/custodial services under the r~sulting cohtract would be provided to the DIA Bui!dlng 6000, which included "office space in the Power House, the Remote Delivery Fac{lity (2 restrvoms and 1 shower area), the T~Modules which are primarily classrooms (3 restrooms) and the Q-Modules (2 restrooms)." S~licitation, at g. "The estimated square footage of Building 6000 is 767,000, the Remote Delivery Facility is 3,200, ~he T-Module is 28,702 and the Q-Module is 4,320." Id. The Solicitation also included janitorial/custodial services for the DIAC Expansion bu, ilding that was scheduled to open in July 2005. The Expansion building had an estimated square footage of 470,000. Id. The resulting contrac~ was to be awarded as a tlrm fixed price contract, Sea Solicitation, at 28 (EAR 52.216.1). It included a base period plus four one-year option periods, The base period was to run from 1 April 2006 through 30 Oct. 2006. See

DC:744833vl

298

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 29 of 30

Anthony Gamboa, Esquire September 25, 2006 Page 5

PROT, ECTED MATERIAL TO I~E DISCLOSE]3 ONLY IN ACCOP~ANCE WITH GO VERNMENT.A(~COUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTEt~TI~E,,.ORD~R

Solicitation, Amendment 10, included as Exhibit 2, hereto. The Option Years were scheduled as follows; Option Year I (31 Oct. 2006 through 30 Oct. 2O07); Option Year 11 (31 Oct. 2007 through 30 Oct, 2008); Option Year 111 (31 Oct. 2008 through 30 Oct. 2009); Option Year IV (31 Oct. 2009 through 30 Oct. 2010). Id. Amon~ other things, the RFP specifically explained:. Before award of the contract the contractor shall have 20% of their security clearances approved as required for performance of this ~ontract. This requirement can be waived only if the contractor has ample cleared personnel to escort cleaning employees to fully satisfy all cleaning -objectives, However, within six months after contract award the contractor must have a minimum of 60% cleared cleaning personnel. The contractor will maintain, throughout the life of the award, ample cleared personnel to achieve contract objectives. Solicitation, at 7 (emphasfs added). Additionally, the Solicitation required submission of a DD Form 254, Department of Defense, Contract Security Classification Specification, with a "Top Secret" Facility Clearance. See DD Form 254, included with Solicitation. The DD Form 25~, expressly provides: THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUfRED TO HAVE A TOP SECRET FACILITY CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THE DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICE (DSS) PRIOR TO CONTRACT IMPLEMENTATION. Id,. (Emphasis added). The Government explained that the Basis for Award would be "best overall value", The Soiicitation stated: CRITERIA FOR CONTRACT AWARD: (a) Basis for Award. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is

299

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-12

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 30 of 30

Anthony Gamboa, Esquire September 2~, 2_006 Page 6

PROTECTED ,M/(TERtAL TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE W.ITH GOVER~NMENT.ACCOUNTAB]_LITY ' OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered.
(b) The Government will perform a trade-0ff analysis of nonprice factors against price to determine the best value to the Government. Offers that are unrealistically low in total price will be conside.red indicative of a lack of understanding 6f the complexity and risk in meeting contract requirements and will. not be considered for award. (c) Relative weight.. Non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance), ,when combined, are more important than price. Of the r~on-price factors, technical is more important than Past Performance. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will increase as the relative differerl~es in non-price factors decreases. See Solicitation, at 41 (emphasis added). The R'FP also provided for the lot}owing subfactors under the Technical Area: (1) Understanding and Compli~fince of Requirements; and (2) Soundness of Approach. Id. at 41-42. And, the RFP provided for the following subfactors under the Management Area: (1) Program Management Controls; (2) Past PefformancelRelevant Experience; and (3) Key Personnel. Id. at 42. The possible Evaluation Ratings were: Excellent, Good, Marginal, and Unacceptable. Under the RFP, a rating of"Excellent" was defined to mean: The Contractor's proposal provides evidence that the Government can expect supedor performance for the tasks and deliverables listed in the Statement of work, with minimal risk of substandard performance. An excellent rating indicates that the proposal contains s~gnificant strengths and few or no weaknesses. Solicitation, at 43. Offerors also were required to submit a price proposa!, See Solicitation, at 39.. ::The Solicitation stated in part;

DC:'~448.33vI

300