BNUMBER:  B-280388; B-280388.2 
DATE:  September 25, 1998
TITLE: General Security Services Corporation, B-280388; B-280388.2,
September 25, 1998
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:General Security Services Corporation

File:     B-280388; B-280388.2

Date:September 25, 1998

Robert A. Boonin, Esq., Butzel Long; and James A. Hughes, Esq., Robert 
S. Brams, Christy G. Slade, Esq., and William E. Slade, Esq., Patton 
Boggs, for the protester.
Gerald L. Elston, Esq., and Charles E. Coburn, Esq., U.S. Marshals 
Service, Department of Justice, for the agency.
Valinda J. Astoria, Esq., Edgar Garcia, Esq., Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., 
and Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., for Akal, Inc., an intervenor.
Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1.  Protest challenging areas of technical evaluation of protester's 
proposal is denied where protester either failed to rebut agency's 
explanation of why downgrading was appropriate, or failed to show that 
downgrading based on omission of information from proposal was 
unreasonable.

2.  Protest against adequacy of documentation for revised scoring of 
protester's proposal is denied where, although individual evaluator 
scoring sheets contain little or no explanation for scoring changes, 
basis for downgrading proposal is documented elsewhere in record and 
establishes reasonableness of downgrading.

3.  Protest that awardee's final proposed price should have been found 
unacceptable because it improperly failed to add fringe benefit rate 
to holiday pay, is denied where there was no requirement for payment 
of fringe benefit rate for holiday pay.  

DECISION

General Security Services Corporation (GSSC) protests the evaluation 
of offers, 
and the award of a contract to Akal, Inc., under request for proposals 
(RFP) 
No. MS-CSC-97-R-0005, issued by the United States Marshals Service 
(USMS), Department of Justice, for court security services in the 
fifth federal circuit.   

We deny the protest.

The RFP, as issued on March 17, 1997 and as amended, contemplated the 
award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery 
contract for a base year, with four 1-year options.  It requested 
offerors to provide individual court security officer (CSO) services, 
as well as managerial and supervisory personnel, and any materials, 
supplies, and equipment required in the performance of the contract.  
The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, 
conforming to the terms of the RFP, was determined to be the most 
advantageous to the government, cost/price and technical factors 
considered.  The solicitation listed in descending order of importance 
the following technical evaluation factors--corporate management, past 
related performance, and qualifications of key personnel. Offerors 
were to propose prices for five categories of services[1] and submit a 
wage compensation plan indicating employee wages and fringe benefits 
over the life of the contract.  The technical factors were assigned 60 
percent of the evaluation weight, and total price 40 percent.

Twelve offers were received and evaluated by a nine-member technical 
evaluation board (TEB) during the week of June 20, 1997.  At the 
request of the contracting officer, four members of the TEB reconvened 
during the week of July 26, 1997 to review the original TEB analysis.  
The reconvened TEB concurred with the original evaluation scores and 
generated additional documentation to support the original  assigned 
scores.  Six proposals were determined to be in the competitive range, 
including the awardee's and protester's.  After two rounds of 
discussions, three rounds of best and final offers (BAFO), and further 
evaluation, Akal's lowest-evaluated-price offer--at 
$60,683,060.82--was rated the highest with a total score of 95.50 
points (55.5 technical and 40.0 price).  GSSC's fourth-low offer--at 
$64,511,132.11--was rated third overall with a total score of 86.43 
points (48.8 technical and 37.63 price).[2]  Award was made to Akal on 
March 30, based on a determination that no other offer presented 
technical advantages that warranted paying a premium above Akal's low 
price.  

GSSC raises numerous arguments challenging the evaluation and other 
aspects of the award process.  We have reviewed the record and find 
these arguments to be without merit.  We discuss several of the most 
significant arguments below. 

EVALUATION OF GSSC'S PROPOSAL

GSSC challenges the evaluated deficiencies of its proposal under the 
management and past performance factors.  

In reviewing a protest against an agency's evaluation of proposals, we 
will examine the record to determine whether the agency's judgment was 
reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.  ESCO, 
Inc., B-225565, Apr. 29, 1987, 87-1 CPD  para.  450 at 7.  We find that this 
aspect of the technical evaluation was proper.

Management

Under this factor, the RFP instructed offerors to address 11 listed 
elements, including the following:  

     Offeror shall detail its procedure on how it will correct 
personnel
     problems, i.e., misuse of weapons, intra personnel skills, etc.
     Explain how suspension and removal will be implemented.  Include
     the length of time for each suspension and how many times an
     employee will be suspended before removed.  Provide examples
     of what type of incidents on the job and/or off duty would 
     warrant suspension and/or removal of a CSO.  

RFP Amendment (Amend.) No. A002  sec.  L-2(d)(1)(vi) at L-5 (Emphasis 
added.).

GSSC's proposal was downgraded for failure to "detail the length of 
time for each suspension of an employee for misconduct, or the number 
of suspensions before the dismissal of an employee."  Letter of 
Debriefing, June 12, 1998, at 3; Final TEB Report, November 25, 1997, 
at 1. 

The protester argues that downgrading for failure to detail the length 
of time for each suspension was unreasonable.  According to the 
protester, its proposal, as initially submitted, clearly met the 
requirement by stating the following:  "[i]f an employee is to be 
suspended, the amount of suspension will be based on the severity of 
the violation and may range from one day to two weeks without pay."  
GSSC Initial Proposal at 33.  

The agency responds that, even if GSSC's proposal can be construed as 
specifying the length of time for each suspension (in fact, the agency 
apparently expected offerors to provide specific examples), it still 
did not indicate how many times an employee would be suspended prior 
to removal, as required by the RFP; the agency asserts that this by 
itself warranted the downgrading in this area.  GSSC did not address 
the agency's response in its comments on the agency report.  Under 
these 
circumstances, we consider the protester to have abandoned the issue.  
Mitchell Constr. Co., Inc., B-245884, B-245884.2, Jan. 17, 1992, 92-1 
CPD  para.  92 at 2; see also, Hampton Roads Leasing, Inc.--Recon., 
B-244887.2, Apr. 1, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  330       at 3-4.[3]  

Past Related Performance

Under past related performance, the RFP instructed offerors to 
"identify all current and past federal, state, local or private 
contracts performed during the last ten years for the types of 
services called for in this solicitation."  RFP Amend. No. A002
 sec.  L-2 (d)(2), at L-6.  In this area, as relevant to the protest, the 
RFP instructed offerors to "assess [their] performance under contracts 
listed . . . [to i]nclude[] the   . . . offeror's experience in 
start-up, replacement of or addition of personnel, any problems in 
performance and any observations on how to avoid those problems in the 
future."  Id., at L-7.  GSSC's proposal was downgraded in this area 
for "not provid[ing] a detailed assessment of its past performance" 
for its listed contracts.  Letter of Debriefing, June 12, 1998, at 2. 

The protester challenges the downgrading of its proposal, contending 
that it "provided at least 34 pages [i.e., pages 47-81] of detailed 
information about its past performance," which "met all of the 
requirements."  Comments (B-280388), at 10.  The agency responds that, 
although GSSC's first BAFO contained some general statements about the 
firm's performance under its listed contracts--such as that the firm's 
past performance had been exemplary and that contract start-up had 
always been accomplished with minimal burdens on GSSC's clients--the 
firm did not provide any details about its experience with start-up 
and problems encountered in the performance of the firm's listed 
contracts, or make any observations about how to avoid problems in the 
future.  Additionally, the agency asserts, GSSC's proposal provided no 
assessment of the firm's replacement or addition of personnel.  
  
GSSC neither rebuts the specific deficient areas cited by the agency, 
where required information was omitted from its proposal, nor disputes 
that the deficiencies are material.  Instead, the protester relies on 
(1) its past performance history which, it contends, the agency 
"already knew . . . because [the firm] performed the same services for 
USMS in every other judicial circuit and in some of those circuits for 
over ten years," and (2) its Price and Technical Proposal Response 
(post-discussions) which, it contends, "provided additional detailed 
information about GSSC's past performance including the high scores 
and accolades that USMS gave GSSC for its performance on past 
contracts" (in the form of a poll of its USMS customers conducted at 
an unspecified time in the past).  Id.

The protester's arguments are without merit.  GSSC's reliance on its 
past performance, without regard to the specific information required 
by the RFP, is misplaced.  A procuring agency's technical evaluation 
is dependent upon the information furnished in the offeror's proposal.  
Computerized Project Management Plus, B-247063, Apr. 28, 1992, 92-1 
CPD 401  para.  at 3.  An agency is not required to overlook a flawed 
proposal on the basis of the offeror's prior performance; on the 
contrary, all offerors are expected to demonstrate their capabilities 
and submit required information in their proposals.  See McAllister & 
Assocs., Inc., B-277029.3,   Feb. 18, 1998, 98-1 CPD  para.  85 at 4, 6.  
Our review confirms the agency's finding that GSSC's proposal omitted 
the required information.  Since GSSC has not shown that the evaluated 
deficiencies are unfounded based on the information contained in its 
proposal, there is no basis to object to this aspect of the 
evaluation.

GENERAL EVALUATION DEFICIENCIES

Inconsistent Evaluator Scoring

GSSC argues that the evaluation of its initial proposal under the 
corporate management factor--which required that offerors "propose 100 
[percent] staffing for the CSO positions . . ."--was unreasonable due 
to inconsistent scoring among evaluators, which was not explained or 
documented.  RFP Amend. No. A003       sec.  L-2(d)(1)(xi), at L-6.  
Specifically, the protester complains that two original TEB members 
assigned its proposal three points, the maximum possible score, while, 
without explanation from the original or reconvened TEB, two others 
assigned it zero points.  

This argument is without merit.  First, disparate scoring among 
evaluators by itself does not suffice to establish an improper 
evaluation.  Unisys Corp., B-232634,     Jan. 25, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  75 
at 6.  Moreover, any disparity in the scoring of GSSC's initial 
proposal had no effect on the final evaluation, since the record shows 
that the deficiency noted in the initial evaluation subsequently was 
eliminated, and GSSC's proposal apparently received a perfect score in 
this area.  Preliminary TEB Report-Reconvened TEB, at 21 (undated, but 
conducted during week of July 26, 1997).[4]  

Documentation for Revised Scoring

The protester argues that there is a lack of documentation in the 
evaluation record for scoring changes in its proposal under the 
assessment of past performance subfactor and, in particular, that the 
record fails to include separate evaluation forms to explain the 
changed scoring, as required by internal agency instructions, entitled 
"Instructions for Technical Evaluation Factors."  In support of its 
position, the protester cites one evaluator's score sheet in this area 
which shows "what appears to be a scoring change from 4 points to 0 
points on a subfactor worth 5 points."  Comments (B-280388.2), at 10. 

Alleged deficiencies in the application of an agency evaluation plan 
do not provide a basis for questioning the validity of the award 
selection; these plans are internal agency instructions and as such do 
not give outside parties any rights.  Management Plus, Inc., B-265852, 
Dec. 29, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  290 at 2 n.2.  Consequently, the fact that 
the agency may not have followed its internal evaluation instructions 
is not a valid basis for protest. 

Nevertheless, agency evaluation judgments must be documented in 
sufficient detail to allow review of the merits of a protest, to show 
that they are not arbitrary, and to show that they are in accord with 
the evaluation criteria listed in the RFP.   Southwest Marine, Inc.; 
Am. Sys. Eng'g Corp., B-265865, B-265865.4, Jan. 23, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  
56 at 10.  While it is not clear from the record why GSSC's proposal 
score in this area initially was higher, the record does support the 
lower final score.  As discussed to some extent above, the initial 
evaluation record described the deficiency in this area as, "[t]he 
offeror did not provide any assessment of its performance under 
contracts listed."  Preliminary TEB Report-Reconvened TEB, at 21.  The 
discussion questions subsequently posed to the protester included, as 
relevant, the statement that the "[o]fferor did not provide an 
assessment of its past performance under previous contracts."  Request 
for BAFOs and Discussion Questions, September 2, 1997, at 2, Question 
No. 11.  Then, in the final evaluation record, the deficiency is 
described as follows:

     Rather than conducting a rigorous assessment of its past 
     performance under previous contracts GSSC provided only a limited 
     assessment which relies largely on a poll it said it conducted at 
     some unspecified time in the past     [; t]here are no 
     indications that this is a scientific poll[; r]esponses to this 
     type of non-scientific survey are of limited use[;] GSSC does 
     provide a limited assessment that is distinguished largely by its 
     limitations and lack of specificity, insight or rigor.  

Final TEB Report, November 25, 1998, at 1.  Thus, the documentation in 
the record is sufficient to indicate precisely why the agency 
ultimately downgraded GSSC's proposal substantially in this area.  The 
protester provides no basis to question the agency's conclusion.[5]

Weighting of Technical Subfactors 

GSSC argues that the evaluation was improper based on the unequal 
weighting of undisclosed technical subfactors.  The protester contends 
that, because the solicitation listed the subfactors without 
indicating the relative weights to be applied to them, offerors were 
entitled to assume that they would be considered of equal, or 
approximately equal, importance, which did not occur in the actual 
evaluation.  As an example, the protester cites the first two past 
performance subfactors--identification of past similar contracts and 
assessment of past performance--which were weighted 5 points each, in 
contrast to the remaining two subfactors--turnover-related information 
and other past performance information offerors wish to provide--which 
were weighted 5 points combined. 

The protester is correct that, where the relative weights of 
subfactors are not disclosed in the RFP, the subfactors are understood 
to be of equal importance to each other.  North-East Imaging, Inc., 
B-256281, June 1, 1994, 94-1 CPD  para.  332 at 2.  However, competitive 
prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.  Geonex 
Corp., B-274390.2, June 13, 1997, 97-1 CPD  para.  225 at 4.  Our Office 
will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a 
reasonable possibility that it was prejudiced by the agency's actions, 
that is, unless the protester demonstrates that, but for the agency' 
actions, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving the 
award.  McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, Feb. 8, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  54 at 3; 
see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d. 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 
1996).  

GSSC has not asserted that it suffered competitive prejudice as a 
result of the agency's unequal weighting of the subfactors and, given 
the informational nature of the subfactors--i.e., concerning past 
performance matters--it is not apparent how different weights would 
have affected the manner in which GSSC prepared its proposal; that is, 
there is no reason to believe that GSSC would have provided any more 
or different information had it been aware of the actual weights of 
the subfactors.  Moreover, the 1.25-point difference between the 
actual evaluation weighting (5 points) and the equal weighting assumed 
by the protester (3.75 points), in the assessment of past performance, 
the area of downgrading of its proposal, is so minimal, that this 
consideration alone renders the potential for prejudice virtually 
nonexistent.  

Calculation of Total Technical Scores

GSSC complains that its initial technical score was improperly 
calculated.  According to the protester, while the TEB report 
indicates that the firm's proposal received a technical score of 44.8 
points, the actual average of the individual scores from the initial 
nine-member TEB was 45 points.  The protester complains that, based on 
this erroneous calculation, its initial proposal was rated only 
conditionally acceptable, when it should have been rated as 
acceptable.  Protest (B-280388.2),     at 5.  GSSC also maintains that 
a similar error may have left Akal's proposal score too low by a 
fractional amount.  The agency acknowledges the error in GSSC's score, 
but maintains that it had no bearing on the overall and final rank of 
the firm's proposal, because after the firm was included in the 
competitive range and participated in several rounds of discussions, 
the firm's technical score was correctly revised by the TEB to account 
for this error.  Contracting Officer's Statement of Fact (B-280388.2), 
at 3.  

It is not apparent from the record whether the error in GSSC's score 
was carried through to the final evaluation, and whether a similar 
error affected Akal's proposal.  However, we fail to see how rounding 
GSSC's score up to 49 and Akal's up to 56 could have affected the 
award decision, and GSSC does not assert that it would have.  
Consequently, this argument presents no basis to question the award.

PRICE EVALUATION

Compliance with Wage Rate Requirements

GSSC argues that Akal's final price failed to comply with mandatory 
RFP wage rate requirements regarding the payment of fringe benefits.  
The RFP made the Service Contract Act of 1965 (SCA) applicable here, 
so that the successful offeror would be obligated to pay employees in 
accordance with wage rate determinations (WRD) issued by the 
Department of Labor (DOL).  RFP Amend. No. A006,  sec.  L-4 at L-10.  The 
applicable WRDs incorporated by the RFP required offerors to (1) pay 
minimum prevailing wage rates in the locality where the services were 
performed, and (2) establish a minimum fringe benefit package 
consisting of specified periods of time for holidays and vacation and 
specified health/welfare and uniform allowances.  RFP  sec.  J, Attachment 
1, as amended.   

In evaluating wage rates, the contracting officer specifically 
determined that "[i]n all cases Akal . . . proposed wage rate[s] above 
the wage determinations, and equal to each of the wage rates as 
provided under Amendment A-006," and that "[t]his [wa]s considered to 
be acceptable."  Cost/Price Analysis, at 1.  

GSSC argues that Akal's final price proposal did not comply with the 
WRDs, notwithstanding the contracting officer's determination to the 
contrary, because Akal generally failed to add a fringe benefit rate 
to holiday pay.  The protester concludes that Akal's proposal should 
have been rejected for failure to comply with a mandatory RFP 
requirement.

We have reviewed the RFP and wage determination and, as the agency 
states, find no requirement that a fringe benefit rate be added to 
holiday pay.  GSSC has neither rebutted the agency's assertion in this 
regard, nor cited the area of the RFP, wage WRD, or applicable 
regulations where such a requirement is established.  We conclude that 
this argument is without merit.[6]
 
Adjustments to Akal's Proposal

GSSC asserts that, although its own and Akal's offered final prices 
were approximately equal ($62,243,593 and $62,114,638, respectively), 
the agency improperly created an approximate $4 million advantage for 
Akal by adjusting GSSC's price upward by $2,267,540, for a total of 
$64,511,133, and adjusting Akal's price downward by $1,431,577, for a 
total of $60,683,061.  

As an initial matter, we note that GSSC's protest regarding the 
adjustment of its own proposed price is untimely.  Under our 
Regulations, protests such as this must be filed with our Office no 
later than 10 days after the protest basis was or should have been 
known.  4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2) (1998).  GSSC challenged the evaluation 
of its proposed price for the first time on July 27, 1998, more than 3 
months after GSSC received the notice of award letter from USMS (on 
April 2, 1998), which listed the total evaluated price of GSSC's 
proposal.  We thus will consider GSSC's argument only with regard to 
the adjustment of Akal's proposal; we find this argument to be without 
merit.

The agency reports that the difference between Akal's proposed and 
evaluated total prices is attributable to calculation errors in both 
the contracting officer's price analysis and Akal's final price 
proposal.  The agency has explained these errors in detail, which we 
will not repeat here.  Contracting Officer's Statement (B-280388.2), 
at 6-7.  After correcting these errors, Akal's final evaluated price 
was $61,652,300.  Thus, even assuming that GSSC is correct that its 
final proposed price of $62,243,593 should not have been adjusted 
upward, the agency maintains that GSSC would not have received award 
because its proposed price still was higher than Akal's correct 
evaluated price.  Id., at 8.  GSSC has not rebutted the agency's 
explanation of the errors and the recalculation of Akal's price.  This 
argument thus provides no basis to question the award.[7]  

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General of 
the United States

1. These categories are (1) CSO services between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 
p.m., Sunday through Saturday; (2) CSO services between 6:00 p.m. and 
6:00 a.m. Sunday through Saturday; (3) CSO services on any of the 10 
recognized federal holidays; (4) start-up services for new CSOs and 
yearly contractor expenditures for uniforms, weapons, proficiency 
testing, and medical examinations; and (5) overtime services.  

2. The prices given here are those calculated by the agency which, as 
will be discussed, differed from those offered.

3. In any case, the downgrading for failure to detail the length of 
time of each suspension was reasonable.  Essentially, the protester is 
arguing that the RFP requirement for the length of time for each 
suspension could be satisfied with the firm's general statement of its 
intended range of suspensions--1 to 2 weeks.  However, this 
interpretation of the requirement was clearly at odds with the 
agency's, as exhibited by the written technical discussion questions 
submitted to the protester.  Those questions cited the failure to 
"detail the length of time for each suspension and the number of 
suspensions allowed before dismissal."  Discussion Questions No. 6, 
September 2, 1997, at 2.  This question put the protester on notice 
that the general statement it initially submitted had been evaluated 
as insufficient to meet the requirement and, therefore, that more 
specific information, such as the length of time of suspension for 
specific examples of misconduct, was necessary.  The protester did not 
provide more specific information, stating only that "[o]ur 
disciplinary procedures purposefully avoids the '3 strikes you're out' 
concept of discipline[; w]e take a disciplinary approach that reviews 
each infraction by a CSO on an individual basis while also weighing 
the disciplinary and work history of the person."  GSSC Pricing and 
Technical Proposal Response at 18 and 19.  It is an offeror's 
responsibility to submit an adequately written proposal in order to 
establish that what it proposes will meet the government's needs.  
Herndon Science and Software, Inc., B-245505, Jan. 9, 1992, 92-1 CPD  para.  
46 at 4.  Here, the protester did not satisfy the request for more 
specific information, and thus took the risk of an unfavorable 
evaluation.      

4. The record indicates that GSSC's technical score was increased by 4 
points, to a  total of 48.8 points, based on, as relevant here, the 
following TEB observation:  "GSSC did state that it would provide 100% 
staffing on day one of the contract which had been a key omission in 
its original proposal netting it 0 points [in this area] in its 
original proposal."  Final TEB Report, November 25, 1997, at 1.  The 
protester does not challenge this indication in the record that the 
original scoring deficiency was corrected.

5. We have no basis to consider the protester's further complaint that 
other scoring was revised without adequate documentation, since the 
protester has not identified any specific areas in this regard.

6. Among other changes, amendment No. A006 required offerors to 
maintain the incumbent contractor's unburdened wage rates.  RFP Amend. 
No. A006  sec.  M-9,  at M-5, and  sec.  J1(b).  The protester contends that 
issuance of this amendment and reopening discussions improperly 
afforded Akal an opportunity to raise its wage rates to the level of 
the incumbent contractor's unburdened wage rates, so as to make its 
proposal minimally acceptable.  This argument is without merit.  There 
was nothing improper in the agency's decision to require offerors to 
meet the incumbent's wage rates, and there certainly was nothing 
improper in reopening discussions to provide offerors an opportunity 
to meet the requirement.

7. GSSC further argues that "Akal's technical score should have 
reflected the negative impact on stability and turnover rate implied 
by slashed wages and benefits that were unreasonably low" (on category 
4 services--start-up, uniforms, weapons, and testing).  Request for 
Additional Documents (B-280388.2), August 24, 1998, at 3.  This 
argument is without merit.  First, the RFP provided that no cost 
information would be considered in the technical evaluation.  RFP 
Amend. No. A002  sec.  L-2(b),   at L-1.  In any case, in the face of the 
agency's finding that Akal's wages were acceptable, there is no basis 
for finding that Akal's wage rates were unreasonably low such that 
reducing Akal's technical score would have been warranted.