Trilogy Secured Services, LLC (B-422661.2)

Category: Sole source, reimbursement of protest costs

Date: 8 November 2024

URL: https://www.gao.gov/products/b-422661.2

You should not care.

Trilogy Secured Services, LLC, sought reimbursement of costs related to its protest of a sole-source contract awarded to Birdi Systems, Inc., for security installation and maintenance services under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) solicitation. Trilogy argued its protest was "clearly meritorious" and claimed the FDA delayed corrective action. GAO rejected this claim, finding the agency's actions reasonable and the protest's merits unsubstantiated.

Trilogy previously protested the award of a sole-source bridge contract to Birdi, asserting FDA's justification lacked sufficient explanation of urgency and failed to consider other sources. FDA argued the bridge contract was essential due to pending litigation delaying performance under a newly awarded IDIQ contract and the expiration of an existing contract. GAO found FDA's actions justified under FAR § 6.302-2 for unusual and compelling urgency. Here’s why:

Urgency justification: GAO determined FDA highlighted critical security needs and risks tied to delayed services, including outdated systems and nationwide security concerns. The protest's disagreement with this rationale did not make the urgency assessment unreasonable.

Consideration of other sources: GAO found the FDA reasonably limited the procurement to Birdi, citing market research and ongoing concerns about Trilogy’s certifications and past performance. Documentation showed that Trilogy lacked required technical certifications, further supporting the agency’s decision.

Planning allegations. Trilogy alleged inadequate planning by FDA caused the urgency. GAO disagreed, stating the agency reasonably anticipated contract continuity before Trilogy’s protest disrupted the schedule.

The protest was denied, as the grounds were neither meritorious nor clearly meritorious. GAO emphasized that corrective actions taken after report submissions alone do not justify cost reimbursement without a strong substantive basis.

Digest

Request for recommendation that protest costs be reimbursed is denied where the challenge to the award of a sole-source contract is not clearly meritorious.