The agency subsequently determined that AlliedBarton was neither residing nor primarily doing business in Louisiana. AR, Tab 9, Consensus Report, at 10. As expressed in a statement filed with FEMA’s report to our Office, the contracting officer considered relevant that AlliedBarton was incorporated in Delaware, had its corporate headquarters in Pennsylvania, and identified Arlington, Virginia as the location of its primary point of contact for government business. Contracting Officer’s Statement, July 17, 2007, at 1. The contracting officer also stated as follows:

I balanced the factors in Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.226-3 to determine whether the company resides in or primarily does business in Louisiana. Favoring a decision that the company resides in or primarily does business in Louisiana is the fact that it has been working in Louisiana for 20 years and has had a Louisiana office since November 2002, before Hurricane Katrina struck. On the other hand, its teaming agreement with a local company did not provide sufficient assurance that the local company would provide 50% of the cost of the guard workforce. Furthermore, AlliedBarton indicated that its local office employs 200 individuals, but it did not state anywhere that the individuals employed at the local office are themselves local. Finally, AlliedBarton’s 2006 Louisiana gross revenues account for only about one percent of its total gross revenues.

Id. at 1-2. The contracting officer concluded that, in her opinion, AlliedBarton had not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that it either resided or did business primarily in Louisiana. Id. at 2.

We find that FEMA’s determination regarding AlliedBarton’s Stafford Act eligibility was a reasonable one. As set forth above, the contracting officer properly considered where the vendor was incorporated, where it had its corporate headquarters, and the location of the company’s government business primary point of contact, all of which were outside Louisiana. The contracting officer also considered information contained within the vendor’s quotation favoring a decision that the company resided in Louisiana, as well as information to the contrary. The contracting officer then balanced the factors set forth in FAR clause 52.226-3 and concluded that AlliedBarton had not satisfied the burden of demonstrating that it either resided or did business primarily in Louisiana. Once an agency has given meaningful consideration to all relevant information, a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation of such information will not be sustained unless the agency’s judgments were unreasonable or contrary to the stated evaluation criteria. See Kay & Assocs., Inc., B-291269, Dec. 11, 2002, 2003 CPD para. 12 at 4; see also Alion Sci. & Tech. Corp., B-297022.4, B-297022.5, Sept. 26, 2006, 2006 CPD para. 146 at 8. We find the protester’s challenge to the agency’s evaluation here amounts to mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment and thus does not establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. JAVIS Automation & Eng’g, Inc., B-293235.6, Apr. 29, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 95 at 5. AlliedBarton also asserts that the agency’s Stafford Act determination was improper because the agency believed that a business concern could not reside in multiple places simultaneously. The protester essentially argues that the contracting officer focused too heavily, if not exclusively, on AlliedBarton’s state of incorporation. While the protester does not dispute that it is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Pennsylvania, it argues that if, under the Stafford Act, “residing” was to mean only where a company was incorporated or had its principal place of business, then Congress, or the FAR, would have reflected that view. Comments, Aug. 8, 2007, attach. 1, Comments in GAO Protest B-299978, at 10-11. The protester’s argument is not supported by the record. The record indicates that the agency did not interpret the term “residing” to mean only where a firm was incorporated or headquartered; rather, the contracting officer reasonably considered all relevant information, including, but not limited to, where AlliedBarton was incorporated and headquartered as part of her determination.  (AlliedBarton Security Services LLC, B-299929; B-299929.3; B-299929.5, October 9, 2007) (pdf)