TITLE:  Farnham Security, Inc., B-280959.5, February 9, 1999
BNUMBER:  B-280959.5
DATE:  February 9, 1999
**********************************************************************
Farnham Security, Inc., B-280959.5, February 9, 1999

Decision

Matter of: Farnham Security, Inc.

File: B-280959.5

Date: February 9, 1999

Christopher B. Ingram, Esq., Haas & Najarian, for the protester.

Chuck Coburn, Esq., United States Marshals Service, for the agency.

Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Evaluation was proper where, although agency applied detailed criteria not
expressly stated in solicitation, there was sufficient correlation between
stated factors and the detailed factors applied that prospective offerors
were on notice of the evaluation criteria to be applied.

DECISION

Farnham Security, Inc. (FSI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the
competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-98-R-0008, issued
by the United States Marshals Service for security services at various
Federal Circuits. [1] FSI contends that the exclusion of its proposal was
based on the agency's improper application of undisclosed evaluation
criteria that previously had been deleted by solicitation amendment.

We deny the protest.

The RFP, issued June 22, 1998, contemplated the award of an
indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery, time-and-materials contract for
each of the judicial circuits. RFP sect. L-6. The RFP stated that award for each
circuit would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value
to the government, price and other factors considered. RFP sect. M-1(b). The
RFP, as amended, contained the following evaluation criteria, listed in
descending order of importance: (1) technical (with subfactors of corporate
management, court security officer (CSO) turnover and disruption, and
qualifications of key personnel); (2) price (including evaluation of options
for a base year and four 1-year option periods); and (3) past performance.
RFP sect.sect. M-5 to M-7.

Eight proposals were received by the September 3 due date and evaluated by
the technical evaluation board (TEB). The agency used a point scoring system
(with a 500-point maximum) for the rating under the technical factor; these
scores correlated to adjectival ratings of outstanding, acceptable,
conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable. The agency also prepared a table
converting its scoring to show rankings based on a 100-point scale. The
technical and price results were as follows (Agency Report (AR), Tab 6,
Initial Competitive Range Determination,

at 3-6): [2]

 Firm       Total Score     Raw Technical Score   Adjectival     Price
                            (Max. 500 pts.)       Rating         (millions)
            (Max. 100
            pts.)

 Offeror    95              483                   outstanding    $145.5
 A

 Offeror    N/A [3]         430                   acceptable     $154.0
 B

 Offeror    90              434                   acceptable     $144.9
 C

 Offeror    86              432                   acceptable     $155.7
 D

 Offeror    84              405                   acceptable     $157.4
 E

 Offeror    79              358                   conditionally  $147.1
 F                                                acceptable

 Offeror    79              326                   conditionally  $146.5
 G                                                acceptable

 FSI        71              275                   unacceptable   $157.8

By decision dated October 19, the agency excluded only FSI's proposal from
the competitive range based on its technical and price ranking. AR, Tab 6,
at 7. This protest followed.

FSI maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals by applying technical
evaluation criteria that were part of an earlier (and far more detailed)
iteration that had been significantly altered by amendment No. A003. FSI
notes in this regard that the solicitation as initially issued contained
more than two pages of text of the detailed factors and subfactors of
corporate management, Protester's Comments at 4, and that, after amendment
No. A003, the RFP stated only as follows:

The Offeror shall prepare and submit for evaluation by the Government a
management plan that indicates to the Government whether the offeror has a
clear knowledge of the scope of the work to be performed. The management
plan must address how the offeror will 1) provide a comprehensive security
program, 2) address employee recruitment and selection process, 3) address
methods of verifying employee's past record of performance and/or
experience, 4) specify supervisory and corporate staffing levels for
performance and administration, 5) provide a corporate management
communication plan from transition through contract performance, 6) address
proposed administrative controls for monitoring the contract, 7) assure CSO
personnel are physically and mentally fit, 8) address procedures for
personnel problems and discipline, and 9) guarantee weapons proficiency.

RFP, amend. A003, sect. L-2(e)(1).

FSI cites several areas of the evaluation that it believes were improperly
affected by application of the original detailed evaluation elements. For
example, in the area of "employee recruitment and selection process" (item 2
above), the protester states that the technical evaluation worksheets (TEW),
provided as guidance to the evaluators during their evaluation, were
virtually identical to the previously deleted detailed evaluation criteria
and bear little relationship to the evaluation criteria of the amended RFP.
The protester notes that the evaluators' comments show that FSI's proposal
was downgraded in this area for not listing "specific requirements for [the]
CSO position," one of the specified evaluation elements under the original
evaluation scheme. Protester's Comments at 6. FSI concludes that its
proposal was found deficient only when measured against "undisclosed
subfactors." Id.

Where an agency evaluation is challenged, we will examine the evaluation to
ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria.
The determination of the relative merits of a proposal is primarily the
responsibility of the agency, and we will not disturb that determination
unless it is shown to be unreasonable. Systems & Processes Eng'g Corp.,
B-234142, May 10, 1989, 89-1 CPD para. 441 at 5. In evaluating a proposal, an
agency properly may take into account specific, albeit not expressly
identified, matters that are logically encompassed by or related to the
stated evaluation criteria. See id. at 10; Unidynamics/St. Louis, Inc.,
B-232295, Dec. 21, 1988, 88-2 CPD para. 609 at 16.

We find that the evaluation of FSI's proposal was reasonable and consistent
with the RFP. [4] We discuss two of the evaluation areas FSI challenges.

The RFP, as amended, specifically stated the major factors to be considered
during evaluation, as well as the weight assigned to each factor. Since the
procurement was essentially for trained security guards, we think that the
general criterion contained in the amended RFP ("address employee
recruitment and selection process") is directly related to the question of
whether an offeror has presented sufficient information on the specific
requirements for the CSO position and any personnel standards and
requirements for site supervisors and contract managers. The CSO position
is, after all, the core of the employee recruitment and selection process,
and the CSO position requirements thus could be expected to have an effect
on both the recruiting approach used and the individuals selected for
employment. We think a reasonable offeror should have understood that a
discussion of the requirements for the CSO position was relevant to the
explanation of its "employee recruitment and selection process."

As another example, the protester complains that under the area of
"assur[ing] CSO personnel are physically and mentally fit" (item 7 above),
its proposal was unreasonably downgraded for failure to discuss annual
checkups and monitoring of weight restrictions for guards. As above, the
protester notes that the TEW reflected the original, detailed RFP, which
specifically stated that offerors should "[a]ssure that employees are
physically and mentally fit to perform required duties and monitor weight
restrictions and annual checkups." Protester's Comments at 10. The protester
concludes that, following issuance of amendment No. A003, there was no
requirement for offerors to set forth a weight restriction and annual
checkup plan. Again, however, the relevant consideration is not what the RFP
originally stated, but whether the evaluation was consistent with the RFP as
amended. It clearly was. A plan for regular medical checkups and weight
monitoring bears a clear and direct relationship to the evaluation of an
offeror's plan to ensure the guards' physical and medical health; indeed, it
is not clear how a contractor could ensure that its employees are in fact
healthy without some sort of a plan providing for medical checkups. We
conclude that the evaluation was consistent with the evaluation criteria as
amended.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General

of the United States

Notes

1. This protest concerns the Ninth Judicial Circuit.

2. Amendment No. 0009 required offerors to submit a new business proposal
based on the incorporation of revised wage determinations and collective
bargaining agreements (CBA). These resubmitted prices, set forth in this
table, were used by the agency in making its competitive range
determination.

3. This offeror did not have a past performance score; the agency thus did
not assign its proposal a total score.

4. We point out that, because the TEWs were part of the agency's internal
evaluation plan, the manner in which they were applied is a matter for
consideration within the agency itself, rather than through the bid protest
process. Interaction Research Inst., Inc., B-234141.7, June 30, 1989, 89-2
CPD para. 15 at 7.