BNUMBER:  B-278766; B-278788; B-278789; B-278790 
DATE:  February 23, 1998
TITLE: E.L. Enterprises, Inc., B-278766; B-278788; B-278789; B-
278790, February 23, 1998
**********************************************************************

Matter of:E.L. Enterprises, Inc.

File:     B-278766; B-278788; B-278789; B-278790

Date:February 23, 1998

Reggy Gray for the protester.
Terrence J. Tychan and Michael Colvin, Department of Health and Human 
Services, for the agency.
Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Requirement for performance and payment bonds in solicitations for 
security guard services is reasonably supported where the agency had 
experience with contractors not paying employees that resulted in 
disruption of service and the bonds were reasonably deemed necessary 
to ensure uninterrupted service.  

DECISION

E.L. Enterprises, Inc. protests the requirement for performance and 
payment bonds in request for proposals (RFP) Nos. S98-0003/CH, 
S98-0006/CH, S98-0011/CH, S98-
0012/CH, total set asides for Indian-owned firms, issued by the 
Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service (IHS), 
for security guard services.  

We deny the protests.

The RFPs were issued by the IHS for security guard services at several 
medical facilities for a base period with 2 option years.  RFP No. 
S98-0003/CH was for guard services at the Gallup Indian Medical 
Center, Gallup, New Mexico.  RFP No. S98-0006/CH was for guard 
services at the Chinle Comprehensive Healthcare Facility, Chinle, 
Arizona and the Tsaile Health Center, Tsaile, Arizona.  RFP No. 
S98-0011/CH was for guard services at the Winslow Indian Health 
Center, Winslow, Arizona.  RFP No. S98-0012/CH was for guard services 
at the Tuba City Indian Medical Center, Tuba City, Arizona.  Each RFP, 
as amended, required a performance bond in an amount equal to 20 
percent of the contract price and a payment bond in an amount equal to 
12 percent of the contract price.

E.L. Enterprises protests that the requirement for bonds is 
unnecessary because there is assertedly no risk to the government in a 
contract for security guard services, since payments are made to the 
contractor after performing the service.  E.L. Enterprises argues that 
the requirement unduly restricts competition by limiting Indian-owned 
companies from bidding on multiple solicitations.

Although as a general rule contracting agencies are admonished not to 
require performance and payment bonds in the case of nonconstruction 
contracts, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  28.103-1(a) (June 
1997), the regulations permit the use of bonding requirements where 
they are necessary to protect the government's interests.  FAR  sec.  
28.103-2(a), 28.103-3(a) (June 1997).  In reviewing a challenge to the 
imposition of a bonding requirement as unduly restrictive of 
competition, we look to see if the contracting officer's determination 
that bonding is necessary is reasonable and made in good faith.  
Northern Management Servs., Inc., B-261424, June 26, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  
291 at 2.

The IHS reports that, while its is true that contractors are paid 
after performing the service, the requirement for bonds was necessary 
for these solicitations in order to protect the government in the 
event that the contractor fails to properly make payments to its 
employees after being paid for the services.  The agency reports that 
recent contracts for security services have been canceled or 
terminated for default because contractors have made delayed payments 
to their employees resulting in the employees walking off the site, 
leaving the agency with an unprotected facility.  The IHS explains 
that the bonds were necessary to ensure uninterrupted security service 
and were in the government's best interest in order to minimize this 
risk.  Further, the agency reports that it has received several offers 
in response to all of the RFPs.

E.L. Enterprises has not rebutted the agency's basis for imposing the 
requirement for bonds.  We have recognized the reasonableness of 
imposing bonds in a contract for security guard service where the 
government is concerned about ensuring uninterrupted service because 
it has experienced interrupted service due to unpaid contractor 
employees in the past.  See Certified Investigations, B-249812, Sept. 
28, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  224 at 3.  Therefore, we find that the agency has 
reasonably demonstrated the necessity for the bonding requirements for 
these solicitations.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General 
of the United States