National Vanguard Consortium, LLC (B-423260)

You should not care.

Category: Technical evaluation, discussions

Date: 19 March 2025

URL: https://www.gao.gov/assets/b-423260.pdf

National Vanguard Consortium, LLC (NVC), protested FEMA’s award of a labor-hour contract for armed security guard services in North Carolina to Strategic Security Corporation, alleging that FEMA unreasonably evaluated its proposal, failed to conduct discussions, and made an improper award decision. FEMA issued the RFP under FAR Parts 12 and 15 and notified offerors that it intended to award without discussions. Of eleven proposals received, NVC's was found technically unacceptable due to a “low confidence” rating under the availability factor, largely due to an inadequate weapons inventory submission. Key issues raised:

Availability factor and master weapons list: GAO found FEMA reasonably assessed a “low confidence” rating because NVC provided details for only ten weapons despite proposing to deploy one hundred armed guards within 48 hours. The solicitation required a “master weapons list” at the time of proposal submission. FEMA reasonably concluded NVC’s proposal lacked the capacity to meet the requirement within the timeframe.

Lack of discussions: As the solicitation stated the agency intended to make award without discussions—and did not conduct discussions with any offeror—GAO found no obligation for FEMA to engage NVC to remedy proposal deficiencies.

Licensing and insurance documentation: GAO found FEMA acted reasonably in questioning submitted documents, as they were not in NVC’s name or its proposed subcontractor’s, nor did the proposal explain the relationship—rendering FEMA’s lack of confidence rational.

GAO found the agency acted reasonably across all allegations. For KOs and industry alike, the case serves as a reminder that mandatory documentation requirements, even under fast-turnaround security solicitations, must be satisfied with specificity. GAO will not infer capabilities not clearly demonstrated in a proposal.

Digest

Protest challenging evaluation of protester’s technical approach is denied where the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation.

Protest challenging agency’s failure to conduct discussions is denied where the solicitation advised offerors that agency intended to make award without discussions and agency did not conduct discussions.