United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

 

Decision 

Matter of: HBC Management Services, Inc. 

File: B-407585 

Date: January 14, 2013 

Brad Miller, Esq., Cooper Morrison & Associates, LLC, for the protester. 

Captain Michael P. Grogan, Corps of Engineers, for the agency. 

Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

1. Protest of an agency’s past performance evaluation of awardee is denied where the 

evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria. 

2. Protest that agency improperly awarded a contract to a firm that allegedly lacks 

the appropriate security clearances and lacks the financial capability to perform the 

contract constitutes a challenge to the agency’s affirmative responsibility 

determination, which this Office will not review absent exceptions not applicable 

here. 

DECISION 

HBC Management Services, Inc., of Honolulu, Hawaii, protests the award of a contract to 

Swanson Services, LLC, of Richmond, Virginia, under request for proposals (RFP) No. 

W912HQ-12-R-0004, issued by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for armed 

guard services at the Humphreys Engineer Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The protester 

challenges the agency’s evaluation of Swanson’s past performance and responsibility. 

We deny the protest. 

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. 
Page 2 B-407585 

BACKGROUND

The RFP, issued as a section 8(a) set-aside under the commercial acquisition procedures 

of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6, provided for the award of a fixedprice contract for armed guard services at the Humphreys Engineer Center for a base year 

and two option years. RFP at 1, 28. Offerors were informed that award would be made on 

a lowest-price, technically acceptable basis considering the following factors: technical 

approach, management approach, past performance, and price. RFP at 26-28.

As relevant here with respect to past performance, the RFP instructed offerors to provide 

“performance history and references to demonstrate satisfactory performance for at least 

three (3) prior contracts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement 

that have been performed over the past five (5) years.” RFP at 28 (emphasis in original). 

In this regard, offerors were informed that an offeror that did not have a record of relevant 

past performance, or for whom past performance information is unavailable, would be found 

acceptable. Id. at 29.

The agency received 10 proposals, including Swanson’s and HBC’s, which were evaluated 

by the agency’s source selection evaluation board (SSEB). Contracting Officer’s Statement 

at 2. All offers were found to be technically acceptable, and were included in the 

competitive range. Discussions were conducted, and revised proposals received and 

evaluated. See Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, SSEB Final Consensus Evaluation Report. 

Following the submission of revised proposals, the RFP was amended to provide an 

addendum to the wage scale and benefits of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between 

the current contractor and the International Union Security, Police and Fire Professionals of 

America union for the Humphreys Engineer Center.1

 Offerors were invited to submit 

revised proposals. RFP amend. 5, at 1-2. Swanson submitted the lowest-priced, 

technically acceptable proposal (deleted), and HBC submitted the second lowest-priced 

proposal (deleted). AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 5. 

Award was made to Swanson, and this protest followed.

 

1 The RFP was amended five times.
Page 3 B-407585 

DISCUSSION 

Past Performance Evaluation

HBC contends that Swanson does not have any relevant past performance and argues that 

therefore, the awardee’s proposal should have been found unacceptable.

In reviewing protests of alleged improper evaluations and source selection 

decisions, it is not our role to reevaluate submissions; rather, we will examine the 

record to determine whether the agency’s judgment was reasonable and in accord 

with the stated evaluation criteria and applicable procurement laws and regulations. 

Panacea Consulting, Inc., B-299307.4, B-299308.4, July 27, 2007, 2007 CPD ¶ 141 

at 3. A protester’s disagreement with an agency’s judgment is not sufficient to 

establish that an agency acted unreasonably. Entz Aerodyne, Inc., B-293531, 

Mar. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 70 at 3.

The record here shows that Swanson identified three guard services contracts that it was 

currently performing: a contract with the Department of the Air Force for unarmed guard 

services at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia; a contract with the City of Virginia Beach to 

provide armed guard services at 18 city facilities; and a contract with Greyhound Bus Lines 

for armed guard services for stations in five cities in Virginia. See Swanson Revised 

Technical Proposal at 55-59. The Army found that all three contracts were relevant and 

demonstrated the firm’s ability to provide the required services. AR, Tab 6, SSEB 

Consensus Report, at 19; Tab 9, Source Selection Decision, at 4-5.

HBC argues, however, that Swanson’s past performance should not be considered relevant 

because the awardee did not have experience providing armed guard services to the 

Department of Defense (DoD) or its agencies. See Comments at 1-2. The RFP, however, 

did not require offerors to demonstrate past performance of armed guard services with DoD 

agencies. Rather, the RFP provided that an offeror’s performance of contracts of similar 

size, scope, and complexity would be considered relevant.2

 Although HBC disagrees with 

the agency’s judgment with respect to the relevance of Swanson’s past performance, it has 

not shown that the agency acted unreasonably.

 

2

 In its comments, HBC complains that the RFP provided that an offeror without a record of 

relevant past performance, or for whom past performance information was unavailable, 

would nonetheless be found acceptable. Comments at 2. This post-award challenge to the 

terms of the RFP is untimely and is dismissed. Our Bid Protest Regulations require that 

protests of apparent alleged improprieties in the RFP be filed before the closing date for 

receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2 (a)(1) (2012). In any event, the solicitation 

provision about which HBC complains appears to be consistent with FAR § 15.305(a)(2)(iv), 

which generally provides that an offeror without relevant past performance may not be 

evaluated favorably or unfavorably.
Page 4 B-407585 

Affirmative Determination of Responsibility

HBC also argues generally that Swanson will be unable to provide guards with a secret 

clearance and is not financially capable of performing the contract. Protest at 3-4; 

Comments at 2-3.

With respect to HBC’s first argument, the RFP provided that all guard personnel are 

required to pass or have passed what the agency calls a “National Agency Check 

Local Agency Check Credit Check” (NACLC) or equivalent examination, whether or 

not they will be given access to classified material. RFP at 12. Offerors were also 

informed that a “NACLC is the same investigation required to attain a Secret 

Clearance for Contractors; however, guards at the entry gate or the Kingman 

building only need the NACLC investigation not the access to classified 

information.” RFP amend. 2, Questions/Answers No. 5, at 3. The RFP did not 

require offerors to provide clearances or certifications with their proposals.

Provisions such as those in the RFP here, that require personnel to obtain 

necessary clearances (or licenses or permits) and have adequate financial 

resources to perform the contract, establish performance requirements that must be 

satisfied by the successful offeror during contract performance; as such, offerors 

are not required to satisfy the requirements prior to award, and the requirements do 

not affect the award decision, except as a matter of a contractor’s general 

responsibility. See Crown Worldwide Moving & Storage, B-406614, July 17, 2012, 

2012 CPD ¶ 208 at 2. 

Our Bid Protest Regulations generally preclude our review of a contracting officer’s 

affirmative determination of an offeror’s responsibility, except where a protester 

alleges that definitive responsibility criteria may not have been met or presents 

evidence that a contracting officer may have ignored information that, by its nature, 

would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be 

found responsible. Neither of these circumstances is alleged or demonstrated here. 

4 C.F.R. § 21.5(c); CapRock Gov’t Solutions, Inc.; ARTEL, Inc.; Segovia, Inc., 

B-402490 et al., May 11, 2010, 2010 CPD ¶ 124 at 26. 

HBC’s general challenge to Swanson’s ability to perform the contract does not 

satisfy our standard for considering challenges to an agency’s affirmative 

determination of responsibility. Moreover, because this procurement set aside for 

8(a) small businesses, any issue concerning the awardee’s responsibility is a matter 
Page 5 B-407585 

for the Small Business Administration under its certificate of competency program, 

not our Office. SoniTech NDT, B-407115, Nov. 2, 2012, 2012 CPD ¶ 311 at 4.

The protest is denied.

Susan A. Poling

General Counsel