MURIEL BOWSER
MAYOR
June 25, 2024
Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20004
Dear Chairman Mendelson:
Pursuant to section 451 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (D.C. Official Code § 1-
204.51) and section 202 of the Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010 (D.C. Official Code §
2-352.02), enclosed for consideration and approval by the Council of the District of Columbia is
proposed Contract No. DCAM-24-NC-RFP-0023D with Security Assurance Management, Inc., in
the not-to-exceed amount of $50,000,000. The contract’s period of performance is from October
1, 2024, through September 30, 2025.
Under the proposed contract, Security Assurance Management, Inc. will provide security guard
services, including the management, tools, supplies, equipment, storage, vehicles, and labor to
ensure effective performance at Asset Class D (Human Support Services) facilities located
throughout the District.
My administration is available to discuss any questions you may have regarding the proposed
contract. In order to facilitate a response to any questions you may have, please contact Delano
Hunter, Director, Department of General Services (“DGS”), or George G. Lewis, Chief of
Contracts and Procurement, DGS, at (202) 727-2800.
I look forward to the Council’s favorable consideration of this contract.
Sincerely,
Muriel Bowser
Pursuant to section 202(c) of the Procurement Practices Reform Act of 2010, as amended,
D.C. Official Code § 2-352.02(c), the following contract summary is provided:
COUNCIL CONTRACT SUMMARY
(Standard and multiyear)
Armed/Unarmed Security Guard Personnel Services - Asset Class D [Human Support
Services]
(A) Contract Number: DCAM-24-NC-RFP-0023D
Proposed Contractor: Security Assurance Management, Inc.
Contract Amount: Not-to-Exceed (“NTE”) $50,000,000.00
Unit and Method of Compensation: Fixed unit prices payable on a monthly basis
Term of Contract: Anticipated Start date of October 1, 2024,
through September 30, 2025
Type of Contract: Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity
(IDIQ)
Source Selection Method: Competitive Request for Proposals
(B) For a contract containing option periods, the contract amount for the base period and
for each option period. If the contract amount for one or more of the option periods
differs from the amount for the base period, provide an explanation of the reason for
the difference:
Base Year Current: NTE $50,000,000.00
Option Year 001 Proposed: NTE $50,000,000.00
Option Year 002 Proposed: NTE $50,000,000.00
Option Year 003 Proposed: NTE $50,000,000.00
Option Year 004 Proposed: NTE $50,000,000.00
(C) The services to be provided, the methods of delivering goods or services, and any
significant program changes reflected in the proposed contract:
Page 2 of 8
Under the proposed contract DCAM-24-NC-RFP-0023D (the “Contract”), Security
Assurance Management, Inc., (the “Contractor”) would provide Armed/Unarmed Security
Guard Personnel Services at various facilities in the District of Columbia (the “District”)
identified under Asset Class D [Human Support Services].
The Contract provides for three types of security guard services to be performed by the
Contractor: (i) Armed Security Guard Services; (ii) Unarmed Security Guard Services; and
(iii) Security Officer, performed at the request and discretion of the Department of General
Services (“DGS” or the “Department”). The Contract contains a base period of one year
from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025, and up to four (4) one-year option
periods. The Contract has a total NTE amount of $50,000,000.00 for the Base Period.
(D) The selection process, including the number of offerors, the evaluation criteria, and
the evaluation results, including price, technical or quality, and past performance
components:
On December 5, 2023, the Department issued RFP No. DCAM-23-NC-RFP-0010 seeking
three (3) licensed and certified firms to provide Armed/Unarmed Security Guard Personnel
Services Asset Classes C, D & E identified as follows: (C) Public Safety and Justice (D)
Human Support Services, and (E) Government Operations. The pre-proposal conference
was held on December 12, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. via WebEx Webinar.
The RFP was posted on DGS website. There were ten (10) addenda issued to this RFP:
Addendum No. 01 Issued on December 12, 2023
• L.18 Pre-proposal Conference Clarification.
Addendum No. 02 Issued on December 29, 2023
• Pre-Proposal Conference Attendance Roster.
Addendum No. 03 Issued on December 29, 2023
• Extended the proposal submission deadline to January 22, 2024, at 2:00p.m.
Addendum No. 04 Issued on January 18, 2024
• Clarify Payment and Performance Bond.
• Replace Section H.11.2.1.
• Extended the proposal submission deadline to February 2, 2024, at 2:00p.m.
Addendum No. 05 Issued on January 31, 2024
• Extended the proposal submission deadline to February 16, 2024, at 2:00p.m.
Addendum No. 06 Issued on February 13, 2024
• Extended the proposal submission deadline to February 23, 2024, at 2:00p.m.
________________________________________________________________________
Department of General Services 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington DC 20019
Page 3 of 8
Addendum No. 07 Issued on February 15, 2024
• Explanation to Prospective Offerors.
• List of Post for Asset Classes C, D and E.
Addendum No. 8 Issued on February 20, 2024
• Extended the proposal submission deadline to March 8, 2024, at 2:00p.m.
Addendum No. 09 Issued on March 1, 2024
• Explanation to Prospective Offerors – Supplemental Information for Questions 7,
41, and 43.
• Explanation to Prospective Offerors – Supplemental Information.
Addendum No. 10 Issued on March 7, 2024
• Added Price-Cost Schedule for Asset Classes C, D, and E.
• Updated proposal closing date.
Number of Offerors:
On the proposal submission date, March 13, 2024, twelve (12) Offerors submitted
proposals for Asset Class C, ten (10) Offerors submitted proposals for Asset Class D, and
eleven (11) Offerors submitted proposals for Asset Class E. All proposals were submitted
timely.
All proposals were scored on a scale of zero (0) to one hundred twelve (112) points. The
(112) points include (80) points for the technical criteria (Relative Experience and Past
Performance of Contractor’s Proposed Team, Relative Experience and Past Performance,
Contractor’s Proposed Key Personnel & Staffing, Daily Operations Management Plan and
Financial Capacity and Responsibility); (20) points for pricing; and up to (12) points based
on the Offeror’s status as a CBE.
Technical Evaluation:
Each Offeror’s technical proposal was independently evaluated by a Technical Evaluation
Panel (“TEP” or “Panel”) consisting of three (3) DGS staff members; one (1) member from
the Department’s Facilities Management Division, and two (2) members from the
Protective Services Division.
Proposals were evaluated by the TEP using the following criteria as set forth in the RFP:
Relative Experience and Past Performance Contractors’ Team 20 points
Contractor’s Proposed Key Personnel & Staffing 15 points
Daily Operations Management Plan 15 points
Financial Capacity and Responsibility 30 points
80 points
Prior to convening the evaluation meeting, each of the Panel members individually
completed an evaluation of the proposals. In this process, every Panel member assigned
________________________________________________________________________
Department of General Services 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington DC 20019
Page 4 of 8
scores to each Offerors’ respective proposal, considering distinct sub-factors within the
three factor categories. These scores were determined using the 6 ratings outlined below
for each sub-factor. Each Panel member also divided the points available for each factor
noted above among the sub-factors in that category.
Numeric Adjective Description
Rating
0 Unacceptable Fails to meet minimum requirements, e.g., no demonstrated
capacity, major deficiencies which are not correctable; offeror did
not address the factor.
1 Poor Marginally meets minimum requirements; major deficiencies which
may be correctable.
2 Minimally Marginally meets minimum requirements; minor deficiencies which
Acceptable may be correctable.
3 Acceptable Meets requirements; no deficiencies.
4 Good Meets requirements and exceeds some requirements; no
deficiencies.
5 Excellent Exceeds most, if not all requirements; no deficiencies.
Following the completion of individual evaluations by the TEP members, the Panel met to
develop a consensus technical score for each Offeror. In developing the consensus score,
the Panel discussed the details of each proposal considering the evaluation factors and sub-
factors. As a collective, the Panel executed a comprehensive technical assessment for each
Offeror with respect to each sub-factor for evaluation. The TEP assigned each sub-factor
one of the six ratings above and divided the points available for each factor among the sub-
factors in that category. The TEP met to develop the consensus technical score and the
supporting written narrative. The TEP’s ratings were then converted into numerical totals.
Pricing Evaluation:
As outlined in the RFP, certain points were available for price. In addition to the technical
scoring, responsive Offerors were assigned price points on a sliding scale, with the lowest
proposed price receiving all of the available points, and the remaining proposal receiving
a portion of the available points relative to its position in the range established by the
highest-and lowest price proposals.
Certified Business Enterprise Preference Points:
In addition to the price and technical scoring, points were available for each Offeror based
on its status as a Certified Business Offer (“CBE”) as determined by DSLBD. The
responsive Offerors were certified and received additional points accordingly.
Contracting Officer’s Independent Evaluation:
The Contracting Officer carefully reviewed the Panel’s consensus technical scoring and
the evaluation process followed by the Panel, including the Panel’s notes, score sheets, and
its final consensus technical evaluation. In addition, the Contracting Officer conducted an
independent assessment of each proposal and exercised her independent judgment in
evaluating the responsive Offerors, after which the Contracting Officer determined that the
________________________________________________________________________
Department of General Services 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington DC 20019
Page 5 of 8
Contractor was the highest ranked Offeror.
BAFO Pricing and Negotiation with Highest Ranked Offeror:
Negotiations were conducted with the top technically ranked offerors in strict adherence
to Section L.1.2 of the solicitation, which outlines the Selection of Negotiation Process,
and in compliance with DCMR 27-1632. To ensure fairness and competitiveness, the
Department determined a competitive range that included the top six technically ranked
proposals, following the guidelines set forth in DCMR 27-1637.2. These top proposals
represented the highest quality responses as determined by the evaluation criteria.
Subsequently, the Department requested a Best and Final Offer (“BAFO”) for Asset
Class Group C, D, and E. This process was pursued to ensure that all competitive offerors
had an equal opportunity to refine their price proposals and provide their most favorable
terms, thereby maintaining the integrity and transparency of the procurement process.
Contract Award:
After reviewing the evaluation Panel’s consensus technical scoring, conducting an
independent assessment in evaluating the responsive Offerors, reviewing the underlying
proposal, documentation and CBE preference points, the Contracting Officer determined
that the Contractor was the highest ranked Offeror. In addition, the Contracting Officer
determined that the Contractor is responsible, and that the Contractor’s proposed pricing is
fair and reasonable. Subsequently, by award memorandum executed June 11, 2024, the
Department intends to award Contract No. DCAM-24-NC-RFP-0023D to Security
Assurance Management, Inc. as such award was determined to be the most advantageous
to the District.
(E) A description of any bid protest related to the award of the contract, including
whether the protest was resolved through litigation, withdrawal of the protest by the
protestor, or voluntary corrective action by the District. Include the identity of the
protestor, the grounds alleged in the protest, and any deficiencies identified by the
District as a result of the protest:
To date, no protest has been received for this solicitation.
(F) The background and qualifications of the proposed contractor, including its
organization, financial stability, personnel, and performance on past or current
government or private sector contracts with requirements similar to those of the
proposed contract:
The Contractor is a Washington, DC based security service company providing armed and
un-armed security guard personnel to the District. The Contractor has previously provided
security services to the District’s portfolio. The Department reviewed the Contractor’s
staffing plan for the work contemplated by the Contract and found it sufficient. The
Contractor has been determined responsible in accordance with 27 DCMR 4706.1.
________________________________________________________________________
Department of General Services 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington DC 20019
Page 6 of 8
(G) A summary of the subcontracting plan required under section 2346 of the Small,
Local, and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Development and Assistance Act of
2005, as amended, D.C. Official Code § 2-218.01 et seq. (“Act”), including a
certification that the subcontracting plan meets the minimum requirements of the Act
and the dollar volume of the portion of the contract to be subcontracted, expressed
both in total dollars and as a percentage of the total contract amount:
The Contractor is a certified business enterprise (CBE No. LX82326032025) and is exempt
from the subcontracting requirements set forth in the Act in accordance with § 2-
218.46(a)(3) of the Act. Nevertheless, the Contractor submitted a preliminary
subcontracting plan certifying its intent to subcontract a portion of the contracting effort to
a Small Business Enterprise.
(H) Performance standards and the expected outcome of the proposed contract:
If the Contract is approved, the Contractor will be required to provide armed and un-armed
security guard personnel as set forth in the Contract’s scope of work. In general, the
Contractor is/will be required to perform or exceed the requirements and performance
standards contained in the Contract. The Contractor shall ensure that fully trained and
verified armed and un-armed security guard personnel are provided to designated facilities
in the District at all times. The Department may withhold payment from the Contractor or
terminate the Contract, in whole or in part as appropriate, if the Contractor fails to perform
the Services within the time specified or fails to perform any of the other provisions of the
Contract. The Contractor’s performance is/will be monitored by Department staff.
(I) The amount and date of any expenditure of funds by the District pursuant to the
contract prior to its submission to the Council for approval:
N/A.
(J) A certification that the proposed contract is within the appropriated budget authority
for the agency for the fiscal year and is consistent with the financial plan and budget
adopted in accordance with D.C. Official Code §§ 47-392.01 and 47-392.02:
The proposed Contract is within the appropriated budget authority for the agency for FY25
and is consistent with the financial plan and budget adopted in accordance with D.C.
Official Code §§ 47-392.01 and 47-392.02. The relevant Fiscal Sufficiency certification
accompanies this Council Package.
(K) A certification that the contract is legally sufficient, including whether the proposed
contractor has any pending legal claims against the District:
The proposed Contract has been deemed legally sufficient by the Department’s Office of
the General Counsel, and the Contractor appears to have no pending legal claims against
the District.
________________________________________________________________________
Department of General Services 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE, Washington DC 20019
Page 7 of 8
(L) A certification that the Citywide Clean Hands database indicates that the proposed
contractor is current with its District taxes. If the Citywide Clean Hands Database
indicates that the proposed contractor is not current with its District taxes, either: (1)
a certification that the contractor has worked out and is current with a payment
schedule approved by the District; or (2) a certification that the contractor will be
current with its District taxes after the District recovers any outstanding debt as
provided under D.C. Official Code § 2-353.01(b):
The District’s Clean Hands database indicates that the Contractor is current with its District
taxes. The relevant Clean Hands certification accompanies this Council Package.
(M) A certification fr