BNUMBER:  B-265650.2
DATE:  December 28, 1995
TITLE:  Areawide Services, Limited

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Areawide Services, Limited

File:     B-265650.2

Date:     December 28, 1995

Wanda M. Johnson, Esq., and John T. Henderson, Esq., Craig, Harris, 
Henderson & Johnson, for the protester.
Valerie L. Veatch, The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, for the 
agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and John Van Schaik, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was 
reasonable where the proposal failed to show the protester's ability 
to develop and write operations manuals; where, based on the 
protester's performance on previous contracts, agency officials had 
reasonable concerns about the firm's ability to perform; and where 
information developed during proposal evaluation showed that the 
protester might not comply with personnel testing requirements.

DECISION

Areawide Services, Limited protests the exclusion of its proposal from 
the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
IBKC-95-002, issued by The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for 
uniformed security guard services.  
We deny the protest.

The RFP required the submission of technical and price proposals to 
provide a force of security officers, including supervisors and a 
project manager, to provide guard services 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week for a base year with 4 option years.    The RFP contained five 
evaluation factors:  (1) corporate organization/structure (including 
as subfactors management/ supervision; prior experience), (2) 
recruitment of personnel (training, professionalism, background 
investigation, and screening), (3) quality control, (4) resources for 
additional personnel and services, and (5) transition plan 
(orientation; daily operations).  Price was to be separately evaluated 
but not scored and was less important than the technical factors.  

Three proposals were included in the competitive range; five others 
(including Areawide's) were rejected as technically unacceptable.  
Generally, Areawide's proposal was rejected because it did not 
address, or contained inadequate responses to, various RFP 
requirements.  For instance, the Center was unable to evaluate 
Areawide's claimed experience in developing and writing operations 
manuals since that portion of its proposal was merely a verbatim copy 
of the Center's current operations manual.  Also, the Center concluded 
that Areawide's use of only one person, who was to have additional 
duties, to handle quality control was inadequate.  Areawide's 
performance on other contracts also was viewed as marginal with 
respect to planning and effecting quality control.  The recruiting, 
screening, and testing procedures set out in the proposal were 
considered vague, and the proposal contained no transition plan other 
than to state that, as the incumbent, Areawide would continue to 
perform as usual, notwithstanding that this procurement included 
increased requirements and an increased level of performance which, in 
the agency's view, made the development of a transition plan 
essential.

Finally, a site visit by the evaluators to Areawide's corporate office 
(the Center states that its evaluators made similar site visits to 
each offeror) raised questions concerning the validity of portions of 
Areawide's proposal.  For instance, while the proposal stated that the 
required 24-hour command post would be located in Areawide's corporate 
office, the Areawide employees indicated that a daytime post existed 
in the corporate office, but after-hours and on weekends that post 
shifted to a location at which Areawide was performing another 
contract.  Also, although the proposal stated that three tests 
required by the RFP to determine the qualifications of potential 
security officers had been passed by Areawide's security officers, 
during the site visit the evaluators were told by Areawide's Director 
of Personnel that the testing had not been, and was not being, 
administered.

Areawide rejects the Center's reasoning, contending first that the RFP 
did not require a single 24-hour command post and that even the use of 
two command posts--one for daytime and another for after-hours and 
weekends--would meet the RFP requirement.  As to the three personnel 
tests specified by the RFP, Areawide, while maintaining that its 
employees did not advise the Center that the tests were not being 
used, states that the RFP, which required the tests to be administered 
to officers "within one year prior to being assigned to a security 
officer position," thus did not require that the tests be administered 
prior to award.  Also, according to Areawide, since the RFP did not 
preclude an offeror from proposing only one person--who might also be 
handling other functions--to handle quality control, the Center 
improperly downgraded this portion of Areawide's proposal.  Areawide 
also objects to the agency's use of negative information relating to 
Areawide's performance on other contracts, since it was never given 
the opportunity to rebut or explain this information.  As to the 
transition plan, Areawide contends that such a submission was not 
required and that the RFP (provision C.12.2.2) only required the 
contractor to submit a "Post Award Implementation Plan" within 10 days 
after contract award.

Areawide also states that nothing in the RFP permits a site visit for 
proposal evaluation purposes.  Areawide argues that since offerors 
must be advised of the criteria upon which proposals will be evaluated 
and since proposal evaluation based upon criteria that were not 
disclosed to the offerors is improper, the Center's evaluation of 
Areawide's proposal based on the results of a site visit must be 
rejected.  Additionally, Areawide objects to the Center's reliance on 
information that it allegedly obtained from Areawide's employees since 
those employees deny having supplied this information.  Areawide also 
argues that the employees had insufficient knowledge of Areawide's 
proposal to discuss it and the use of such information is indicative 
of the bias held by the Center personnel against Areawide.  Areawide 
maintains that it was treated in a discriminatory manner while 
performing the previous  contract because the Center's Director of 
Security had wanted another firm to perform that contract.  Areawide 
notes that the Director of Security was appointed as the source 
selection authority for this procurement and another person involved 
with the previous contract was on the evaluation panel.

Generally, the evaluation of technical proposals is a matter within 
the contracting agency's discretion since the agency is responsible 
for defining its needs and the best method of accommodating them.  
Science Sys. and Applications, Inc., B-240311; B-240311.2, Nov. 9, 
1990, 90-2 CPD  381.  In reviewing an agency's technical evaluation, 
we will not reevaluate the proposal, but will examine the record of 
the evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and in accord with 
stated evaluation criteria and not in violation of procurement laws 
and regulations.  Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284 
(1990), 90-1 CPD  203.  

We believe the Center's rejection of Areawide's proposal was 
reasonable in view of the doubts raised in the proposal about 
Areawide's ability to develop and write operations manuals, and its 
intention to utilize officers who had passed the required tests, as 
well as  the problems encountered during Areawide's performance of 
prior contracts .

In its proposal, in order to demonstrate its capability and experience 
in developing, writing, and updating procedural operations manuals, 
Areawide provided a "Sample Procedural Manual" which consisted of 8.5 
proposal pages which simply repeated verbatim (except for minor 
deletions) pages from the Center's manual, "Policies, Procedures and 
Responsibilities, " dealing with the project manager, shift 
supervisors, the operations center, and patrol requirements for the 
Center.  Areawide maintains that it has a right to use the Center's 
manual because it was provided to Areawide when it began performing 
the previous contract.  Nonetheless, we agree with the Center that 
Areawide did not establish its own capability and experience in this 
area by simply repeating the Center's existing manual.

As for prior experience, the RFP required offerors to submit 
information regarding experience performing similar security work as 
well as three references.  Based upon reports from these references, 
the Center reasonably concluded that as to planning and effecting 
quality control Areawide's performance under the RFP would be 
marginal.  Despite Areawide's contentions that the Center could not 
utilize this information as it did, the Center was free to evaluate 
what it learned from these sources without having to discuss that 
information with Areawide and without investigating the accuracy of 
the information.  See SDA Inc., B-256075; B-256206, May 2, 1994, 94-2 
CPD  71. 

Finally, although Areawide stated in its proposal that the three 
RFP-required tests had been administered to and passed by its proposed 
security officers, we believe the Center could reasonably have doubts 
about this aspect of the proposal.  While Areawide disputes the 
Center's assertion that Areawide's Director of Personnel stated during 
the site visit that the tests had not been, and would not be, 
administered to Areawide employees, during a debriefing Areawide's 
president admitted that the tests had not been administered because 
his attorney advised him "that there might be a discrimination problem 
with the tests."  Given that admission and in light of the fact that 
some of the proposed personnel were already employed by Areawide as 
security officers under the incumbent Kennedy Center contract, it 
could reasonably appear to the Center that Areawide, despite the 
statement in its proposal, would not commence contract performance 
with security officers who had taken and passed the required 
testing.[1]  

Areawide also raises the possibility of bias on the part of the Center 
personnel involved on this procurement.  According to Areawide, its 
performance was criticized under the incumbent contract because many 
of its employees, including its project manager, are African-American 
and the Center's Director of Security preferred that the contract be 
staffed with retired Secret Service officers, who are generally 
caucasian.

A protester must produce credible evidence showing bias, not mere 
inference or supposition, and must demonstrate that the agency bias 
translated into action which unfairly affected the protester's 
competitive position on the procurement in question.  Triton Marine 
Constr. Corp., B-250856, Feb. 23, 1993, 93-1 CPD  171.  Here, 
Areawide's allegation of bias is based upon its speculation concerning 
the reasons why its performance was criticized under the prior 
contract.  In any event, nothing in the record shows that this alleged 
bias affected the evaluation of  Areawide's proposal.  On the basis of 
our above discussion of the inadequacies in Areawide's proposal, we 
can only conclude that the exclusion of Areawide's proposal from the 
competitive range was reasonably based and not the result of bias.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Areawide's argument notwithstanding, the RFP clearly envisions that 
security officers, at the time they begin performance, will have 
passed the tests within the preceding 1-year period.