TITLE: B-296510, Evergreen Fire & Security, August 22, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296510
DATE: August 22, 2005
****************************************************
B-296510, Evergreen Fire & Security, August 22, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Evergreen Fire & Security

   File: B-296510

   Date: August 22, 2005

   S. Christopher Easley, Esq., The Easley Law Group, P.S., for the
   protester.

   Dale Shane for Shane Gelling Co., an intervenor.

   Capt. Joseph Fratarcangeli, Department of the Army, 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. Where solicitation did not require offerors to submit evidence of
   technicians' qualifications prior to award, whether technicians will meet
   the requirements is a matter of contract administration and not for review
   by GAO.

   2. Agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance as very good was
   unobjectionable where it was consistent with awardee's performance record
   and only negative information identified by protester concerned matters
   for which, record shows, awardee was not responsible.

   3. Evaluation of protester's proposal as marginal was reasonable where
   proposal failed to identify firm's capability in all systems identified in
   solicitation.

   DECISION

   Evergreen Fire and Security protests the award of a contract to Shane
   Gelling Co. (SGC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-05-R-0001,
   issued by the Department of the Army as a total small business set-aside
   for intrusion detection systems security services at Fort Hood, Texas.
   Evergreen challenges the agency's technical evaluation of SGC's and
   Evergreen's proposals.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for
   a period of a base year, with 4 option years. The contractor was to
   provide necessary personnel, management, equipment, tools, and other items
   to perform maintenance, repair, services, and systems administration for
   all Provost Marshal Office security systems at Fort Hood. These systems
   included intrusion detection systems (IDS); Integrated Commercial
   Intrusion Detection System-II (ICIDS-II); electronic entry control systems
   (EECS) radio frequency identification readers and cards (RFID); closed
   circuit televisions (CCTV) and forward looking infra-red (FLIR) cameras;
   electronic security fence sensors (ESFS); access control point (ACP)
   automation including defense biometric identification and radar detection
   system (DBIDS); and the secure law enforcement network (SLEN).

   Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors--quality,
   past performance, and price. The quality factor was divided into three
   subfactors--technical capability, management, and quality control. The
   quality and past performance factors combined were substantially more
   important than price. Proposals were scored on an adjectival/color
   basis.[1] Award was to be made on a "best value" basis.

   Evergreen, SGC, and a third offeror submitted proposals. The results of
   the consensus evaluation were as follows:

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |             |     Evergreen     |        SGC        |    Offeror 3     |
   |-------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------|
   |Quality      |  Marginal/Yellow  | Very Good/Purple  | Marginal/Yellow  |
   |-------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------|
   |Past Perf.   | Very Good/Purple  | Very Good/Purple  | Very Good/Purple |
   |-------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------|
   |Price        |    $2,927,129     |    $3,109,541     |    $3,077,490    |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

   Based on these results, the contracting officer concluded that SGC's
   proposal represented the best value to the government, and awarded it the
   contract without conducting discussions. After receiving a debriefing,
   Evergreen filed this protest challenging the evaluation of the proposals.

   In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is
   confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and
   consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and
   regulations. United Def. LP, B-286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 75 at 10-11. The evaluation here met this standard.

   SGC PROPOSAL

   Personnel

   Evergreen asserts that the agency improperly failed to downgrade SGC's
   proposal on the basis that its technicians were not properly certified
   prior to award.

   The evaluation in this regard was reasonable. While the "contractor" was
   required to show evidence that all field technicians working on the
   IDS/ICIDS-II had the minimum specified MDI SAFEnet[2] certification
   qualifications and to ensure that all personnel had the proper
   professional certifications "before starting work" (Performance Work
   Statement (PWS) sect. C.1.3.11), the RFP did not require that all offerors
   establish their qualifications at the time of proposal submission or at
   any time prior to award. In this regard, as to certification and training,
   the RFP only required offerors to "[d]escribe the methods, and procedures
   necessary and which will be employed to ensure experience[d] and certified
   MDI personnel will perform services." RFP at 115. SGC's proposal met this
   requirement by describing in detail the extent of its personnel's training
   and certifications. SGC Proposal, para. II.3. In the absence of a
   requirement that offerors provide proof of qualifications prior to award,
   SGC's failure to provide such proof was not a basis for downgrading its
   proposal. Further, whether SGC provides qualified/certified technicians in
   performing the contract concerns contract administration; such matters are
   within the discretion of the agency and not for review by our Office. Bid
   Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.5(a) (2005).

   Past Performance

   Evergreen asserts that the agency's evaluation of SGC's past performance
   as very good failed to take into consideration SGC's alleged inability to
   satisfactorily perform its incumbent contract at Fort Hood. Specifically,
   Evergreen identifies three instances of ICIDS system failures at Fort Hood
   that SGC was unable to resolve and that Evergreen was called upon to
   repair.

   The past performance evaluation was unobjectionable. Proposals were
   evaluated on the basis of information submitted by offerors regarding
   their current or prior contracts reflecting experience in providing
   services or similar services as stated in the PWS. RFP at 115. SGC
   submitted information from two contracts, including its contract for
   maintenance and repair of the IDS and EECS at Fort Hood. SGC's proposal
   was rated as very good/purple based on positive ratings in all areas under
   both contracts. For example, its quality of service was highly
   recommended, its timeliness of performance was highly rated, and its key
   personnel performed their duties very effectively. Agency Report (AR), Tab
   19. The agency explains that SGC's past performance was not downgraded
   based on the system failures identified by Evergreen, because SGC was not
   responsible for maintenance or service of the ICIDS-II system at Fort
   Hood; rather, that system was an upgrade to the CIDS system maintained by
   SGC, and installation of the upgrade was the responsibility of another
   contractor. AR, Tab 25, paras. 1-2. The failures occurred prior to final
   acceptance of the upgrade and Evergreen was called in to resolve them, not
   because SGC could not do so, but because the protester was under contract
   as a quick-response ICIDS-II repair provider. Id., para. 4. Since SGC's
   record of past performance supports the agency's rating of very good, and
   SGC was not responsible for maintaining the system that failed, the
   agency's evaluation was reasonable.

   EVERGREEN'S PROPOSAL

   Evergreen asserts that the agency improperly evaluated its proposal as
   marginal based on the agency's finding that the firm had failed to address
   its capability to support all systems identified in the PWS. In
   Evergreen's view, the evaluators should have recognized that its stated
   experience with the ICIDS-II system encompassed the other systems.

   This argument is without merit. The PWS identified the tasks required in
   performance of the contract and instructed offerors to "provide evidence
   that [the] company is capable of performing maintenance/repair on the
   ICIDS-II, CCTV, EECS, ESFS, ACP, RFID, DBIDS and SLEN security systems and
   the plan of execution for services to be performed." RFP at 114. According
   to the agency, while the ICIDS-II is technically capable of being
   configured to include the other listed systems, the systems are all
   separate at Fort Hood. AR, Tab 10 at 6. In this regard, when the ICIDS-II
   upgrade was accomplished at Fort Hood, none of the other systems was
   updated, altered, or changed. AR, Tab 10, at 5. Since, contrary to the
   RFP's express instructions, Evergreen's proposal only addressed its
   capabilities and experience with ICIDS-II (it was evaluated as strong in
   that area), and did not significantly discuss the remaining systems, the
   agency reasonably rated the proposal as marginal overall. An offeror is
   responsible for submitting an adequately written proposal, and runs the
   risk that its proposal will be evaluated unfavorably where it fails to do
   so. Carlson Wagonlit Travel, B-287016, Mar. 6, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 49 at
   3.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] The adjectival/color ratings included unsatisfactory/very high risk
   (red); marginal/high risk (yellow); satisfactory/moderate risk (green);
   very good/low risk (purple); and outstanding/very low risk (blue).

   [2] MDI Security Systems produces the ICIDS-II and SAFEnet systems.