BNUMBER:  B-265650
DATE:  December 18, 1995
TITLE:  United International Investigative Services

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

Matter of:United International Investigative Services

File:     B-265650

Date:     December 18, 1995

William J. Guidice for the protester.
Valerie L. Veatch, The Kennedy Center, for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protester's proposal was reasonably found technically unacceptable and 
excluded from the competitive range where the agency found that the 
key personnel proposed by the protester failed to meet the minimum 
solicitation requirements.

DECISION

United International Investigative Services protests the rejection of 
its proposal under request for proposals (RFP) No. IBKC-95-002, issued 
by The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for uniformed security 
guard services.  United's proposal was rejected after it was 
determined not to be within the competitive range.  United contests 
the validity of that determination.

We deny the protest.

The RFP required the submission of technical and cost proposals for 
providing a force of security officers including three shift 
supervisors and one project manager which would provide guard services 
24 hours a day (three daily shifts), 
7 days a week.  Technical factors were more important than cost/price.

After the receipt and evaluation of proposals, three proposals were 
found to be within the competitive range and five (including United's) 
were rejected as technically unacceptable.  By letter of August 3, the 
Center advised United--which had submitted the lowest price of all the 
offerors--of the rejection of its proposal and the reasons for the 
decision.  Generally, the Center was concerned with United's ability 
to provide guard services as required by the RFP.  Among several 
deficiencies, the evaluators found that (1) United's proposal did not 
support claims that the work force could be doubled in 2 hours without 
using personnel who had been on duty during the prior 24 hours and 
that no post would ever go unmanned; (2) most of United's proposed key 
personnel, including the proposed project manager and several proposed 
supervisors, did not meet minimum RFP requirements; and (3) none of 
the proposed staff met the requirement that they be qualified as 
special police officers (SPO) with the authority to enforce the law 
and to detain suspects for questioning or to make arrests.

United contends that the areas of deficiency were all sufficiently 
addressed in its proposal and that any clarifications that might have 
been required could have been addressed during discussions.  In 
particular, while United concedes that its proposed project manager 
did not have the required 4-year degree, it notes that he did have a 
2-year degree and more than 25 years of relevant experience, and 
argues that the educational requirement should have been waived.  It 
cites in this regard RFP section C.5.5.2, which states that "the 
contractor may request the approval of another employee without the 
required experience if the contractor can provide sufficient 
documentation to support his/her selection."

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 procurement laws and regulations.  
Information Sys. & Networks Corp., 69 Comp. Gen. 284 (1990), 90-1 CPD  
203.  

The rejection of United's offer was reasonable in view of United's 
failure to offer key personnel who met the RFP requirements.  The RFP 
required the project manager to have a degree from a 4-year accredited 
college or university.  The person designated by United as project 
manager did not have this required degree.  Further, United's proposal 
did not show that person to be qualified as a SPO as the RFP required.  
(It appears that it can take up to 6 months to obtain a SPO 
qualification from the District of Columbia.)  Of the supervisory 
personnel proposed, only one met both the experience (number of years) 
and educational (2-year degree) requirements.  Further, neither that 
person nor the others were shown to be qualified as SPOs.  United does 
not deny this and, indeed, does not address in its protest the issue 
of the acceptability of the persons proposed as supervisors.  

United's argument that the education requirement could have been 
waived is without merit.  The provision relied upon refers to RFP 
section F, "Deliveries or Performance," which clearly relates to 
performance of the contract and, by its terms, allows the 
"contractor," not offerors, to request a waiver.  The provision does 
not provide any basis for an agency to waive material RFP requirements 
during the evaluation of proposals.

In short, offerors had to propose staff which met RFP requirements, or 
risk rejection of their proposals as unacceptable.  Based on our 
review of the record, the Center reasonably concluded that the key 
personnel proposed by United were unacceptable because they failed to 
meet the RFP requirements.  On this basis alone--lack of personnel who 
met education or experience requirements--the agency reasonably could 
view the protester's proposal as unacceptable and exclude it from the 
competitive range, irrespective of its lower offered price.  
Electronics Sys. USA, Inc., B-246110, Feb. 14, 1992, 92-1 CPD  190; 
see Systematic Management Servs., Inc., B-250173,  Jan. 14, 1993, 93-1 
CPD  41.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States