BNUMBER:  B-271385; B-271385.3
DATE:  July 10, 1996
TITLE:  Akal Security, Inc.

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

Matter of:Akal Security, Inc.

File:     B-271385; B-271385.3

Date:July 10, 1996

Daya S. Khalsa for the protester.
Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Agency was not obligated to advise offeror during discussions that 
its price was higher than that of other offerors or than the 
government's estimate where the agency did not consider the price 
unreasonable.  

2.  Protest that agency improperly applied unstated evaluation 
criterion by considering the rank that offerors' proposed key 
personnel had attained is denied where the consideration was 
reasonably encompassed by the solicitation criterion concerning 
management experience.  

DECISION

Akal Security, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the 
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 
S-OPRAQ-94-R-0434, issued by the Department of State (DOS).  Akal 
argues that the agency improperly and unfairly evaluated its technical 
proposal. 

We deny the protest.  

The RFP sought proposals to provide qualified professional security 
and managerial personnel to perform uniformed guard services, such as 
access control, security for special events, and security inspections, 
at various State Department facilities, contemplating the award of an 
indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for a base year, 
with 4 option years.  The RFP set forth a 500-point technical 
evaluation scheme and provided that proposals would be evaluated under 
the following technical and management criteria, listed in descending 
order of importance: protective security personnel; approach; 
professional standards; clearance requirements; training; plans and 
programs; reporting and administration; corporate experience; 
understanding of need for security; management structure; and 
maintenance of government furnished equipment.  The solicitation also 
listed subfactors for each of the evaluation factors.  The subfactor 
at issue here concerns the ability of an offeror to provide personnel 
meeting criteria for performance of duties set forth in Section J, 
Attachment J-2, Position Classifications and Job Descriptions for 
Uniformed Protective Services for Key Personnel, under the most 
heavily weighted protective security personnel factor.  This subfactor 
laid out various experience and management requirements for each key 
position.  For example, the position of central monitoring station 
watch officer required either the successful completion of 25 years of 
civilian or military equivalent law enforcement experience, of which 5 
years must have been in management, and a successful demonstration of 
the proposed employee's ability to manage and supervise the numbers of 
personnel required for this contract, or an Associates Degree from an 
accredited college or university and three years of equivalent civil 
service or military law enforcement experience.    

The State Department received 10 proposals.  Following evaluation of 
initial proposals, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) established a 
competitive range of six proposals, including Akal's.  The agency 
conducted written discussions with each offeror in the competitive 
range, and requested revised proposals.  The agency evaluated the 
revised proposals, conducted further discussions with each offeror in 
the competitive range, and received a second round of revised 
proposals.  As evaluated, Akal's technical and management proposal 
received a total of 427.70 points, ranking fifth out of the six 
proposals.  Akal offered a price of $82,206,841.[1]  The agency then 
eliminated three proposals, including Akal's, from the competitive 
range, and this protest followed.[2]    

DISCUSSIONS

Meaningful Discussions

Akal first protests that the agency failed to engage in meaningful 
discussions because it failed to discuss Akal's proposed price. 

In negotiated procurements, agencies are required to conduct 
meaningful discussions with offerors in the competitive range.  Arthur 
Anderson & Co., 
71 Comp. Gen. 233 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  168.  In order for discussions to 
be meaningful, an agency generally must point out deficiencies, 
uncertainties, or suspected mistakes in a proposal.  See Federal 
Acquisition Regulation 
(FAR)  sec. 15.610(c) (FAC 90-31).  Although an agency may inform an 
offeror during discussions that its price is considered to be too high 
or unrealistic where otherwise appropriate, FAR  sec.  15.610(e)(2)(ii), 
the government has no responsibility to do so where the offeror's 
price is not considered excessive or unreasonable.  Weeks Marine, 
Inc./Bean Dredging Corp., a Joint Venture, 69 Comp. Gen. 108 (1989), 
89-2 CPD  para.  505; Applied Remote Technology, Inc., B-250475, Jan. 22, 
1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  58; Warren Elec. Constr. Corp., B-236173.4; 
B-236173.5, July 16, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  34.  Further, an agency is not 
required to conduct price discussions with an offeror solely because 
its price is higher than that of other offerors; on the contrary, an 
agency is generally constrained not to advise an offeror of its price 
standing relative to other offerors.  FAR  sec.  15.610(e)(2).

Here, the agency performed a price analysis of the proposals and 
determined that Akal's price was competitive and not unrealistically 
high.  Accordingly, the agency had no duty to advise Akal that its 
price was high.  See Weeks Marine, Inc./Bean Dredging Corp., a Joint 
Venture, supra.  

Evaluation of Akal's Technical Proposal 

Next, Akal contends that in evaluating management experience, the 
agency improperly based its assessment on whether Akal's proposed key 
personnel had achieved a certain rank, such as a that of commissioned 
or warrant officer in the military, or lieutenant in a civilian police 
force.  Akal argues that this represents use of an undisclosed 
evaluation criterion.  The protester also asserts that the undisclosed 
rank requirement is inappropriate for evaluating the management 
experience of proposed key personnel.  For example, Akal argues that 
one of its proposed employee's experience as a sergeant in a large 
metropolitan police department should qualify him as a lieutenant in 
the much smaller workforce being procured here. 

A solicitation must inform offerors of the basis for proposal 
evaluation, and the evaluation must be based on the factors set forth 
in the solicitation.  FAR 
 sec.  15.605(d), 15.608.  We perceive no violation of that rule here.  
The RFP required that individuals proposed for key positions possess 
certain civilian or military equivalent law enforcement experience, 
that a certain amount of the law enforcement experience be in 
management, and that the proposed individuals demonstrate their 
ability to successfully manage and supervise the numbers of personnel 
required for this contract.  Offerors could also meet the requirements 
of the key personnel positions by proposing candidates with Associate 
Degrees, and with a lesser amount of equivalent civil or military law 
enforcement experience.   

In evaluating Akal's proposal, the evaluators determined that four of 
the eight key personnel proposed by the protester lacked the 
management experience required by the RFP.  In each instance, Akal had 
submitted a resume specifying years of management experience which 
Akal designated in every case as "in rank up to" a listed rank, which 
was not that of a commissioned or warrant officer for any of the  
individuals.  The evaluators, who were familiar with the 
responsibilities of civilian and military officers of various ranks, 
considered that the achieved ranks were below that of a command 
position, which they viewed as necessary to satisfy the RFP's 
experience requirement, particularly since the resumes of the proposed 
key personnel did not indicate that these four individuals possessed 
the kind of management experience required by the solicitation.  For 
example, one of the employees proposed by Akal, whose highest achieved 
rank in the Army was that of master sergeant, had the following 
managerial experience:  manager of the Quality Control team and convoy 
commander.  We see nothing unreasonable in the evaluators' conclusion 
that this experience did not equate to the type of command experience 
that comes from exercising consistent, ongoing management and 
supervisory responsibilities.  Akal's proposed employee's experience 
seems to involve ad hoc supervisory roles which did not represent 
regular, day-to-day supervisory responsibilities, and nothing in 
Akal's proposal otherwise demonstrated that its proposed key personnel 
had the experience the agency was seeking.  In short, we find nothing 
improper in the evaluation here.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States

1. The technical and management scores of the six offerors ranged from 
423.53 points to 499.67 points; the prices ranged from $68,492,821 to 
$84,304,201.

2. The agency subsequently issued a request for best and final offers 
to the three offerors remaining in the competitive range.  The agency 
awarded a contract to Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., the 
lowest-priced, second highest technically ranked offeror, in the face 
of the protest, determining that urgent and compelling circumstances 
did not permit awaiting our decision in the matter.