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.