BNUMBER:  B-276012 
DATE:  May 1, 1997
TITLE: Matter of:Integrity International Security Services, Inc. 

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

Matter of:Integrity International Security Services, Inc.

File:     B-276012

Date:May 1, 1997

Joel S. Rubinstein, Esq., Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, for the protester.
Richard E. Hurst, Esq., General Services Administration, for the 
agency.
Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that minimum experience requirement---requiring offerors to 
have completed two security guard contracts of at least 175,000 
hours--is unduly restrictive of competition is denied since the 
magnitude and nature of the procurement--particularly, the safety 
concerns caused by recent terrorist events--reasonably justify the 
restriction in order to ensure that contractors have a minimally 
adequate track record of past performance with comparable security 
guard projects.

DECISION

Integrity International Security Services, Inc. protests the terms of 
request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-11P-96-MPC-0510, issued by the 
General Services Administration (GSA) for security guard services at 
the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.  The protester contends 
that the RFP's minimum experience requirement--which limits 
eligibility for award to those offerors who, within the past 5 years, 
have performed two similar security guard contracts involving at least 
175,000 hours each--is unduly restrictive.
  
We deny the protest.

When completed, the Ronald Reagan Building will be the second largest 
federal office building in the United States.[1]  As specified in the 
solicitation, GSA estimates that the facility will require 
approximately 350,000 security guard hours per year--which is one of 
the largest security guard service requirements in the industry.

The challenged minimum experience requirement, which is set forth as 
an evaluation factor at section M of the RFP, provides in pertinent 
part as follows:

     ". . . each offer[or] must demonstrate performance of at least 
     two (2) contracts of a similar size and nature within the past 
     five (5) years.  [Emphasis in original.] . . . .  A contract is 
     comparable in size if the required manhours are equivalent to or 
     greater than 50 [percent] of the productive hours required by 
     this solicitation."  [Emphasis added.]

The solicitation also provides that failure to meet this "minimum" 
experience requirement "will render the offer technically 
unacceptable."

GSA concedes that the minimum experience provision prevents Integrity 
from competing; however, the agency maintains that the provision is 
unobjectionable because the restriction is necessary to protect human 
life and safety.  GSA reports that it typically requires security 
guard service competitors to demonstrate successful performance of at 
least one similar security guard contract involving labor hours 
equivalent to 80 percent of a solicitation's labor hour estimate; 
however, in this case, because the RFP's labor hour estimate--350,000 
hours--is so high, GSA lowered the minimum experience requirement to 
50 percent of the RFP's stated labor hour estimate--175,000 hours.  
Since this reduction was made to foster competition, and since GSA is 
aware of 11 federal and 18 other security guard service contracts 
which would satisfy the experience requirement, GSA argues that the 
minimum experience requirement is not unduly restrictive and that the 
protest should be denied.  

Integrity argues that the current eligibility provision is unduly 
restrictive because it prevents responsible sources with comparable 
large security guard contract experience--such as Integrity--from 
competing.  In this regard, Integrity explains that because it has 
successfully performed one comparable 175,000-hour project, the firm 
possesses the necessary large contract experience, competence, and 
management expertise to successfully fulfill the agency's needs in 
this procurement.  As relief, Integrity requests that the agency amend 
the solicitation either to permit consideration of offerors who have 
performed only one comparable 175,000-hour security guard contract, 
or, alternatively, to replace the current go/no-go minimum experience 
requirement with an open-ended provision that provides for a 
comparative evaluation of each offeror's past experience.

Under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA), an agency is 
required to specify its needs and solicit offers in a manner designed 
to achieve full and open competition, so that all responsible sources 
are permitted to compete.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  253a(a)(1)(A) (1994).  A 
contracting agency may include restrictive provisions or conditions 
only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency's needs.  41 U.S.C.  sec.  
253a(a)(2)(B).  As GSA correctly points out, contracting agencies have 
discretion to use restrictive provisions where, as here, the 
solicitation requirement relates to safety concerns, provided that the 
agency establishes that the challenged restriction is necessary to 
ensure the highest level of reliability and effectiveness.  Harry 
Feuerberg & Steven Steinbaum, B-261333, Sept. 12, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  109 
at 3.  

In view of the size and unique character of the Ronald Reagan 
Building, as well as the threat posed to government buildings in the 
aftermath of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma 
City, GSA was clearly reasonable in giving enhanced attention to the 
security of the building and its occupants.  In light of this concern 
for security, GSA appropriately wanted the security guard service 
contractor to demonstrate a minimum level of experience with contracts 
of a similar size and nature.  Initially, GSA had called for the 
offeror to demonstrate that it had performed at least four comparable 
contracts in the past 3 years.  In order to enhance competition, 
however, the contracting officer made a series of revisions which 
successively reduced the restrictiveness of the minimum qualification 
requirement as follows:   four contracts in the past 3 years; three 
contracts in the past 3 years; and finally two contracts in the past 5 
years.  The contracting officer considered the current version of the 
minimum qualification requirement--two  contracts in the past 5 
years--to be the absolute minimum for ensuring an offeror's ability to 
perform.  The contracting officer also reduced the solicitation's 
original definition of "comparable contract" from the GSA norm of 80 
percent of the productive hours required in the solicitation to 50 
percent of the productive hours.

While GSA did not articulate the basis for the restriction as clearly 
as we would have preferred, given the circumstances discussed above, 
we have no basis to question the agency's position that, to 
demonstrate a "minimally adequate track record," an offeror must show 
repeated successful performance of a comparably sized project a second 
time in 5 years.  This is particularly so since such contracts are 
only 50 percent of the labor hours actually required.  Further 
buttressing our conclusion that the requirement is not overly 
restrictive is the fact that GSA received 12 timely offers complying 
with the experience requirements.

Considering the size of the government building involved (the largest 
in the District of Columbia and the second largest in the country), 
the 350,000 annual labor hour estimate (among the largest in the 
industry), and the clear threat to federal office buildings, we are 
not prepared to say that the current minimum experience 
requirement--two projects in the past 5 years--is unreasonable.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The Ronald Reagan Building will house the United States Customs 
Service, the Agency for International Development, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, an international trade center, and numerous private 
offices and retail shops.