B-400437, Triple Canopy, Inc., November 13, 2008
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.
1. Where, prior to the submission of proposals, the agency expressly advised offerors that it would not require contractors to obtain facilities security clearances to perform task order requirements, protest that awardee was ineligible for task order award on the basis that it does not hold a facilities clearance is essentially an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation.
2. Protest that agency failed to reasonably evaluate the past performance of protester and awardee is denied where agency’s past performance evaluation record is consistent with solicitation’s definition of relevant past performance, contains adequate contemporaneous documentation supporting the agency’s assessments, and the opinions of protester’s personnel regarding the awardee’s prior performance provide no credible basis to question the reasonableness of the agency’s assessments.
Triple Canopy, Inc. of
In April 2007, the agency issued a solicitation for the
TWISS ID/IQ contract, which is the underlying contract for the task order
protested here; the TWISS solicitation sought proposals to provide security
Prior to submission of final proposals under the TWISS solicitation, the agency published responses to various questions posed by offerors. Among other things, in May 2007, the agency published the following question and response:
QUESTION/COMMENT: Does the offeror need a facilities clearance? If so, will the customer consider sponsoring an offeror for a Limited Facilities Clearance? DoesAgency Motion to Dismiss,
[ UK ] Secret suffice for the “cleared” positions? Does the offeror require a facilities clearance as defined in NISPOM [National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual]? Does a UK Secret or NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] secret clearance suffice for coalition secret? United Kingdom
ANSWER: There is no requirement for a facility requirement for this contract as there is no requirement for contractors to store or process classified information. A UK Secret clearance would be considered as meeting the coalition secret requirements. Any access to classified information would be in a government facility at an FOB.
In short, prior to submission of final proposals for the TWISS ID/IQ contract, the agency was specifically asked whether a facilities clearance would be required for contract performance. The agency clearly responded that it was not, explaining that contractor personnel would have access to classified information only at a government facility and, thus, the contractor would not be responsible for storing or processing classified information at its own facility. Triple Canopy did not protest the terms of the solicitation.
In September 2007, TWISS ID/IQ
contracts were awarded to five offerors, including Triple Canopy and
Sabre. By letter dated
In July 2008, the agency issued a task order request (TOR) to provide security services at FOB Prosperity. The TOR provided that the agency would perform a “best value tradeoff” on the basis of two factors--price and past performance--providing that price was the more important of the two factors. TOR at 2.
With regard to price, the TOR: (1) contained a manning table that listed
types of posts, various labor categories, and required manning levels; (2)
referred offerors to the labor categories/CLINs (contract line item numbers)
that were contained in their TWISS contracts; and (3) directed offerors to
“furnish completed pricing for all CLINs based on attached CLIN
Triple Canopy and Sabre each submitted a proposal prior to
the applicable July 8 deadline; thereafter, their proposals were
evaluated. With regard to past
performance, the contracting officer concluded that Triple Canopy and Sabre
were essentially equal;
accordingly, price became the determinative factor. Source Selection Decision (SSD) at 9. Sabre’s evaluated price was $11,951,246;
Triple Canopy’s evaluated price was $13,937,757.
Triple Canopy protests that Sabre was ineligible for award because it does not hold a facilities security clearance, which Triple Canopy asserts is a requirement for contract performance, and that the agency failed to reasonably evaluate Sabre and Triple Canopy with regard to past performance. As discussed below, we dismiss the protest with regard to the alleged requirement for a facilities security clearance and we deny the protest with regard to the agency’s past performance evaluations.
Triple Canopy first challenges the task order award to Sabre on the basis that Sabre does not hold a facilities security clearance, asserting that a facilities clearance is a requirement for performance of this task order.
As discussed above, prior to competing for the TWISS ID/IQ contract, the agency was specifically asked whether a facilities clearance was required for performance of this contract. The agency unambiguously advised offerors that it was not, explaining that, in performing subsequent task order requirements, contractor personnel would have access to classified information only at a government facility and, thus, the contractor would not be responsible for storing or processing classified information at its own facility. Triple Canopy did not protest the terms of the TWISS solicitation. Further, as noted above, the Prosperity TOR did not state that, to perform the particular requirements of the Prosperity task order, a contractor was required to obtain a facilities clearance, and Triple Canopy did not protest the terms of the Prosperity TOR prior to submitting its proposal.
Our Bid Protest Regulations require that protests challenging alleged defects or improprieties that are apparent from the face of the solicitation must be filed prior to the time established for submission of proposals. 4 C.F.R. 21.2(a)(1) (2008). Here, there is no credible argument that the agency’s position regarding facilities clearances was ambiguous. As discussed above, the agency was expressly asked whether a facilities clearance was required, and the agency specifically responded that it was not. Accordingly, Triple Canopy’s assertion that Sabre was ineligible for award of this task order because it does not hold a facilities clearance is, in essence, an untimely challenge to the terms of the solicitation and will not be considered; this portion of Triple Canopy’s protest is dismissed.
Triple Canopy next protests that the agency failed to
reasonably evaluate Sabre’s and Triple Canopy’s respective past performance. More specifically, Triple Canopy’s protest
states, “on information and belief, [the agency] either ignored or did not
properly weight Sabre’s poor record of performance on prior TWISS task orders,
thus improperly rating Sabre’s past performance.” Protest at 13. The protest elaborates that, “[f]or example,
on information and belief, Sabre has failed to meet mobilization timelines, has
a poor record of customer satisfaction, and has had personnel shortages.”
As a general matter, the evaluation of an offeror’s past
performance is within the discretion of the contracting agency, and we will not
substitute our judgment for reasonably based past performance ratings. In determining whether a particular evaluation
conclusion is reasonable, we examine the record to determine whether the
judgment was reasonable, adequately documented, and in accord with the
solicitation’s stated evaluation criteria.
See, e.g., Abt Assocs., Inc., B-237060.2,
Here, consistent with the TOR provision that, “[o]nly Past
Performance associated with previously awarded TWISS task orders will be
considered relevant,” TOR at 2, the record indicates that the agency considered
only Sabre’s and Triple Canopy’s previous performance of TWISS task orders in
performing its past performance evaluations.
More specifically, the contemporaneous record shows that the agency
considered Triple Canopy’s performance under three prior TWISS task orders: “FOB Delta,” “MNC-I C2,” and “FOB
Endeavor.” SSD at 7. Similarly, the agency considered Sabre’s
performance under five prior TWISS task orders:
“FOB Hammer,” “FOB Husaniyhs,” “
Because the TWISS program is relatively new the current task orders have only been active for 2-4 months on average. As such there is little past performance information available. To date however, all the contractors are performing services as required on their respective contracts. None of the three TWISS Contractors evaluated have any negative reports to date. All three contractors mobilized as required by the task order and are performing the services as required under the contract. There are no known performance deficiencies for any of the contractors.
SSD at 8.
The SSD referenced additional past performance evaluation
documentation showing that Sabre and Triple Canopy had each been criticized for
errors in completing certain required forms, but specifically noted with regard
to each contractor that the agency was “seeing good improvement.” SSD, attach. 2. The additional evaluation document also noted
that Sabre has “[m]issed quarterly census reporting requirement.”
Further, the agency’s past performance documentation
noted: “[Sabre] is eager to address
issues that arise. No significant
quality performance faults or failures noted in COR assessments.” SSD, attach. 2, Similarly, the documentation noted: “[Triple Canopy] cultivates a professional
relationship with customer. No
significant quality performance faults or failures noted in COR assessments.”
Triple Canopy’s protest and subsequent submissions essentially offers its own evaluation of Sabre’s and its own past performance, concluding that its own past performance should have been considered superior to Sabre’s. In that context, Triple Canopy submitted a declaration from its vice president of protective services containing various allegations regarding Sabre’s prior performance.
Consistent with the principle, stated above, that the
relative merits of offerors’ past performance is properly within the discretion
of the contracting agency, and that our Office will not substitute our judgment
for that of the agency, it is similarly well‑settled that a protester’s
mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment is insufficient to establish that
an evaluation was improper. See, e.g.,
Clean Harbors Envtl. Servs., Inc., B-296176.2,
Here, we have reviewed the agency’s evaluation record and conclude that the agency’s consideration of Triple Canopy’s performance regarding three prior TWISS task orders, and Sabre’s performance regarding five prior TWISS task orders, was adequately documented, consistent with the TOR’s definition of relevant past performance, and provided a reasonable basis for the agency’s conclusion that the offerors’ past performance was essentially equal. Further, the declarations of Triple Canopy’s employees containing various criticisms and allegations regarding the prior performance of Sabre, their competitor, fall woefully short of establishing a basis for this Office to sustain the protest.
Among other things, Triple Canopy’s declarations consist
primarily of what the declarents themselves acknowledge is second- and
third-hand hearsay from unidentified sources.
(For example Triple Canopy’s vice president asserts that other unnamed
Triple Canopy personnel “received information” from unidentified former Sabre
employees and that “former [unidentified] Sabre third country national
employees” told similarly unidentified Triple Canopy personnel about various
alleged deficiencies in Sabre’s performance regarding generally unidentified
contracts. Protester’s Comments,
Even if this Office viewed Triple Canopy’s vague and unsupported allegations as constituting objective, credible evidence regarding Sabre’s prior performance on relevant contracts--which we do not--Triple Canopy has not shown that any of the purported information was reasonably available to the contracting officer when he performed his past performance evaluation. On the record here, there is no merit in Triple Canopy’s protest challenging the agency’s past performance evaluation, and we find no basis to question the agency’s determination that the past performance of Triple Canopy and Sabre were reasonably considered to be essentially equal.
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
 The protest record indicates that the terms “forward operating base” and “contingency operating base” were used interchangeably by the agency; our decision uses the term “forward operating base” or “FOB” throughout.
Based on the agency’s disclosure of additional information, Triple Canopy filed
a supplemental protest on
The scope of services sought was described as “all labor, weapons, equipment,
and other essential requirements to supplement and augment security operations
at various sites throughout the Iraqi theater.”
TWISS Performance Work Statement
The other four awardees were Aegis Defence Services, Ltd. of
 The TOR did not state that, in order to perform the particular requirements of this task order, a contractor was required to obtain a facilities clearance, and Triple Canopy did not protest the terms of the Prosperity TOR.
The contracting officer describes both Sabre’s and Triple Canopy’s past
performance as “excellent.” Contracting
 As a preliminary matter, the agency has argued that this Office is not authorized to consider the issues raised in Triple Canopy’s protest due to the protest limitations previously imposed by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA), 10 U.S.C. sect. 2304(c) (2000). The agency raised this argument in a prior Triple Canopy protest that involved similar facts and raised similar issues; we addressed the agency’s arguments in Triple Canopy, Inc., B‑310566.4, Oct. 30, 2008, 2008 CPD para. ___ at 5-7, explaining that there, as here, this Office’s consideration of Triple Canopy’s protest is authorized by section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA), Pub. L. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3, 236‑39 (2008).
In response, Sabre submitted its own declaration from its TWISS program manager
addressing each of Triple Canopy’s criticisms and stating that “Each such
allegation is categorically false and is unsupported by any evidence.” Declaration of Sabre Program Manager,
 Triple Canopy also asserts that the agency failed to perform a best value tradeoff. As discussed above, the agency reasonably concluded that the offerors’ past performance was essentially equal, and the TOR provided that, following a determination of minimum acceptability, price was the only other evaluation factor. Accordingly, price properly became the determinative factor.