BNUMBER: B-272947.2
DATE: September 11, 1996
TITLE: Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc.
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc.
File: B-272947.2
Date:September 11, 1996
William F. Myers for the protester.
Capt. Karl W. Kuhn and Col. Michael R. Neds, Department of the Army,
for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest that contracting agency improperly relied on an unstated
evaluation factor concerning offeror experience is denied where the
solicitation clearly put offerors on notice that relevant experience
would be evaluated under the past performance evaluation area.
DECISION
Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. protests the award of
a contract to Omniplex World Services Corporation under request for
proposals (RFP) No. DASG60-96-R-0009, issued by the Department of the
Army for security services at the U.S. Army Space and Strategic
Defense Command in Huntsville, Alabama. Myers argues that the agency
improperly evaluated its proposal.
We deny the protest.
The security services to be provided here include the protection and
destruction of classified documents, as well as the operation of the
government's Electronic Integrated Facility Security System (EIFSS).
The EIFSS is an electronic security system--comprised of
closed-circuit televisions, electronic card readers, motion detectors,
public address systems, and computers--that ties together all aspects
of security services to record system events, alert personnel to
intrusions and other emergency situations, and authorize badge holders
access to different areas of the Command.
Under the solicitation, proposals would be rated either acceptable or
unacceptable under the technical and management areas set forth in the
solicitation. All proposals rated acceptable would be evaluated under
the equally important areas of past performance and price.[1] The
solicitation set forth several specific past performance evaluation
factors and advised that:
"The offeror's proposal and available information obtained from
other sources will be evaluated to assess the offeror's relevant
corporate experience and past performance in providing security
services as well as performing tasks comparable to those required
by the [statement of work]."
An integrated assessment would be made between past performance and
price, and award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most
advantageous to the government.
The agency's proposal evaluation team (PET) determined that the
proposals of both Omniplex and Myers were acceptable under the
technical and management areas.[2] Omniplex was rated exceptional
under the past performance area and Myers was rated acceptable. The
agency believed that Omniplex's past experience in badging, operation
of electronic security systems, and protection/destruction of
classified materials exceeded the solicitation's requirements. In
contrast, Myers met the minimum past performance requirements for
security services and visitor control, but lacked experience in
badging, electronic security systems, and protection/destruction of
classified materials. The PET determined that both offerors' prices
(Omniplex, $2,744,282; Myers, $2,691,861) were reasonable and that
Omniplex's proposal represented the best value to the government based
on its past performance rating. The source selection authority
concurred and award was made to Omniplex.
In its protest, Myers argued that the technical area's evaluation
subfactor with respect to the EIFSS system did not "stress or express
experience," and that the agency's downgrading of its proposal for its
lack of specific experience amounted to the use of an unstated
evaluation factor. In its comments on the agency report, the firm
merely stated that it "stood by" its initial protest statements.
Solicitations must identify all significant factors and any
significant subfactors that will be considered in awarding the
contract, and the evaluation of proposals must be based on the factors
set forth in the solicitation. Federal Acquisition Regulation sec.
15.605(d) (FAC 90-31). The record shows that this evaluation properly
was based on the factors set forth in the solicitation.
Myers' proposal was downgraded for its lack of relevant experience not
under the technical area, but under the past performance area. With
respect to past performance, the solicitation stated that the agency
would assess the offerors' "relevant corporate experience and past
performance in providing security services as well as performing tasks
comparable to those required by the [statement of work]." This
language explicitly permits the agency to consider offeror experience
in providing security services and performing tasks comparable to
those required by the SOW, and we have recognized similar RFP language
as permitting this type of evaluation. See PMT Servs., Inc.,
B-270538.2, Apr. 1, 1996, 96-2 CPD para. . In addition, in response
to a potential offeror's query, amendment No. 0004 stated that "[t]he
scope of the past performance evaluation includes the offerors'
experience in security services as well as other business activities
of a comparable nature to the [statement of work]. Thus, the
contractor may expect the government to examine its past performance
in general and draw comparisons to the proposed efforts." Given that
the statement of work calls for operation of the EIFSS system at the
Command, it clearly was reasonable for the agency to consider Myers'
lack of experience in this area in evaluating its proposal under the
past performance factor; no unstated evaluation factor was utilized in
this case.
The protest is denied.
Comptroller General
of the United States
1. The possible ratings for the past performance factor were
exceptional, good, acceptable, marginal, and unacceptable. Price was
unrated.
2. No other proposals are at issue here.