TITLE:  McBride-IHS, B-290074, June 3, 2002
BNUMBER:  B-290074
DATE:  June 3, 2002
**********************************************************************
Matter of:   McBride-IHS



File:            B-290074



Date:              June 3, 2002



Rudiger Leyh for the protester.

Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.

Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST



1.  Agency properly determined that offeror?s proposal was technically
unacceptable, even after proposal revisions, where agency reasonably found
the proposed relief guard plan, utilizing supervisory personnel and guards
from the next scheduled shift, to be unrealistic and inadequate to ensure
proper coverage of guard absences.



2.  Agency engaged in meaningful discussions where it led protester into
deficient areas of its proposal requiring correction to become technically
acceptable.

DECISION



McBride-IHS, a joint venture, protests the award of a contract to Pond?s
Security Service under request for proposals (RFP) No. SGM500-00-R-0006,
issued by the Department of State for local guard services in Germany.
McBride challenges the agency?s evaluation of its proposal.



We deny the protest.



The RFP sought proposals to provide some 150 armed and unarmed guards for
50 different posts, along with surveillance detection services, for the U.S.
Embassy in Berlin, 5 consulates, and 4 other U.S. government facilities.
The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price, time and materials contract
for a base year, with 4 option years.  Technical proposals were to be
evaluated under three major factors:  contract management plan,
experience/past performance, and preliminary transition plan.  Each factor
was made up of various subfactors.  Relevant here, under the transition plan
factor, proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of recruitment, employee
training, licenses and permits, insurance, priority guard posts, phase-in,
plans for relief guards, and timeline.  In order to be evaluated as
technically acceptable, a proposal had to be rated acceptable under all
three major factors.  Proposals were also evaluated on the basis of total
price including options, and any U.S. preference adjustment.  Award was to
be made to the firm submitting the lowest priced, technically acceptable
offer.



Ten offerors, including Pond?s and McBride, submitted proposals.  Two
proposals were eliminated due to incompleteness, one was withdrawn, and four
more were eliminated after the initial evaluation.  Of the remaining three
proposals, only that of Pond?s was considered technically acceptable as
submitted.  The agency conducted discussions with all three offerors and
obtained revised proposals.  The technical evaluation panel reviewed the
offerors? submissions and reached a consensus evaluation for each proposal.
In the final evaluation, again, only the Pond?s proposal was determined
technically acceptable.  While McBride?s revised proposal was lower priced
than that of Pond?s and was found to have addressed all discussion issues,
the evaluators found it unacceptable with regard to the relief guard plan
and conditionally acceptable as to the number of contract personnel.  The
source selection authority therefore made award to Pond?s.  After receiving
notice of the award and a debriefing, McBride filed this protest.



TECHNICAL EVALUATION



Relief Guard Plan



McBride challenges the evaluation of its proposal as unacceptable based on
its relief guard plan.  In reviewing a protest against an agency?s proposal
evaluation, our role is limited to ensuring that the evaluation was
reasonable and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable
statutes and regulations.  National Toxicology Labs., Inc., B-281074.2, Jan.
11, 1999, 99-1 CPD ï¿½ 5 at 3.[1]  The evaluation here was unobjectionable.



The RFP required offerors to submit a plan for ?fully trained and qualified?
relief guards, at no additional cost, who were provided ?to allow for
comfort, personal needs, stress, meals, or other required or requested
absences from post? of security personnel at fixed posts.  RFP
ï¿½ï¿½ C.3.1.2, L.1.3.3(c)(4).  The RFP did not provide any additional guidance
on how plans were to be configured.  McBride?s initial proposal plan was
based on using as relief guards ?other guards or the guard shift supervisor?
(for up to 3 hours per day), with longer periods accommodated by replacement
guards.  McBride Proposal ï¿½ C.7.  Emergency absences were to be covered by
the shift supervisor until replacement guards reported for duty.  McBride
also offered ?alert teams? to cover operational contingencies within 2
hours, but did not provide any details regarding those teams.  Id.  The
consensus evaluation found McBride?s approach an ?unrealistic proposal to
use guards on duty? (Agency Report (AR), Tab 15), and the agency advised
McBride in discussions that this approach was unacceptable and lacking in
detail.  AR, Tab 21, at 3.



McBride?s revised proposal plan stated that normal relief (up to 15 minutes
per absence) would be provided by the senior guard or shift supervisor, with
the emergency relief guard to be ?the next scheduled oncoming shift guard,?
who was to arrive within one hour.[2]  McBride Revised Proposal, ?Relief
Guards.?  The evaluation consensus found this revised plan ?unrealistic,
inadequate, and unacceptable,? and that it evidenced a lack of understanding
of the requirement.  AR, Tab 27, Technical Evaluation Report (TER), at 3.
Specifically, the agency found that it was not clear how many personnel
McBride was proposing; notwithstanding proposal statements that relief
guards were included within the total number of personnel, McBride?s
personnel list indicated that the relief guards (nearly one-third of the
total) were not included in the total.  McBride Revised Proposal, Encl. 4.
In addition, the agency noted that McBride continued to propose to use
supervisory personnel as relief guards, the same approach McBride had been
advised was unacceptable, and also that its proposed approach could not
?possibly meet the stated requirement as it would take far too long until
off-shift guards would be able to arrive at the posts where relief is
required, especially since [the RFP] appeared to clearly describe relief
situations as sudden and unforeseen events requiring immediate relief.? AR,
Tab 27, TER, at 3.  The agency further noted that the proposed plan ?would
necessarily lead to extended work hours/shifts for regular guard personnel
which was not acceptable because it was foreseeable that this would sooner
or later lead to fatigue and have a negative effect on performance.?  Id.
The agency found that the proposal also failed to make clear how off-shift
guards would be contacted; how their availability would be ensured; and how
quickly and by what means they would arrive at their posts.  Id.



We see nothing unreasonable in the agency?s conclusions.  The agency
explains that a proper relief guard plan was considered essential, in part,
because it had experienced chronic guard shortage problems under the
incumbent contract; the agency was concerned that such shortages could
result in increased working hours for guards already putting in long hours,
which in turn could result in guards being mentally or physically
ineffective.  AR, Tab 27, TER Summary.  This became a greater concern after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, because the agency has ?experienced
more frequent incidents requiring additional guard staffing with little or
no advance warning.?  Id.  The agency referenced its concerns in
specifically advising McBride during discussions that its proposal to use
supervisory personnel and other on-duty guards as relief guards was
unacceptable.  McBride?s revised plan nevertheless continued to offer
supervisory personnel and regular guards from the next shift to fill relief
needs, without addressing the issues of availability and the eventual
fatigue of relief personnel inherent in its plan.  Given the agency?s need
for effective guard coverage at all times to ensure the safety of embassy
and consulate personnel, it reasonably determined that these deficiencies,
along with the others noted above, rendered McBride?s relief guard plan
unacceptable.  See Integrity Private Security Servs., Inc., B?255172,
Dec. 17, 1993, 93-2 CPD ï¿½ 332 at 4.



McBride asserts that, by rejecting its entire proposal based on its
unacceptable relief plan, the agency improperly gave undue weight to the
relief plan subfactor.  This argument is without merit.  To be considered
technically acceptable, a proposal had to be acceptable under each of the
major evaluation factors.  RFP ï¿½ M.2.b.  The factor ratings were based on
the ratings under each subfactor.  As discussed above, the agency reasonably
evaluated McBride?s proposal as unacceptable under the relief guard plan
subfactor, which in turn rendered its proposal unacceptable under the
transition plan factor.  While McBride minimizes the significance of this
subfactor, the agency has explained why, in fact, the relief guard plan was
a crucial element for an effective guard force.  Since we find this
explanation reasonable, we conclude that the agency did not give undue
weight to the relief plan subfactor, and properly rejected McBride?s
proposal as unacceptable.



DISCUSSIONS



McBride asserts that the agency failed to provide the firm with meaningful
discussions as to what would be acceptable in a relief guard plan.[3]  While
agencies generally are required to conduct meaningful discussions by leading
offerors into the areas of their submissions requiring amplification, this
does not mean that an agency must ?spoon feed? a vendor as to each and every
item that must be revised or addressed to improve the submission.  Arctic
Slope World Servs., Inc., B-284481, B?284481.2, Apr. 27, 2000, 2000 CPD ï¿½ 75
at 9.  Here, the agency?s discussions identified the relief guard plan
requirement; specifically noted that McBride?s plan did ?not provide
sufficient detail?; and advised that McBride?s plan ?to have other guards on
duty and the supervisory guards to provide relief for up to 3 hours . . .
would not be acceptable.?  AR, Tab 21 at 3.  This clearly was sufficient to
lead McBride into the area of its proposal requiring more information and/or
revision, and thus satisfied the requirement that discussions be
meaningful.  Arctic Slope World Servs., Inc., supra.  While McBride
maintains that the agency should have provided it additional discussions
regarding its revised plan, agencies are not required to notify offerors of
deficiencies remaining in proposals, or to conduct successive rounds of
discussions until all omissions are corrected.  OMV Medical, Inc., B-281490,
Feb. 16, 1999, 99-1 CPD ï¿½ 38 at 7.



The protest is denied.



Anthony H. Gamboa

General Counsel



-------------------------

[1] Preliminarily, McBride asserts that the consensus rating of its proposal
as unacceptable was improper because two of the three evaluators found its
revised proposal acceptable.  However, consensus ratings need not be those
initially awarded by the individual evaluators; such ratings properly may be
determined, as here, after discussions among them.  It is not unusual for
individual evaluator ratings to differ could cancel from one another, or
from the consensus ratings eventually assigned; the overriding concern for
our purposes is not whether the final ratings are consistent with earlier,
individual ratings, but whether they reasonably reflect the relative merits
of the proposals.  Brisk Waterproofing Co., Inc., B-276247, May 27, 1997,
97-1 CPD ï¿½ 195 at 2 n.1.  As discussed below, the consensus rating assigned
to McBride?s proposal was reasonable.



[2] For two locations, the proposal provided for the shift supervisor to
fill in until the relief guard arrived, but did not explain what was to
happen in the other eight locations.



[3] In a related argument, McBride asserts that it was unaware that the
agency?s communications with it constituted discussions, or that its
response was its final proposal revision.  This argument is without merit.
It was or should have been clear to McBride that the agency?s communications
were discussions.  In this regard, the discussions letter asked 14 questions
about various aspects of the proposal and specifically advised that the
proposal was ?susceptible to being made acceptable, provided? the agency?s
concerns were resolved.  AR, Tab 21.  McBride?s 59-page response, including
a verification of its price, indicates that the protester was well-aware of
the importance of its response.