TITLE: B-299369, AMS Group, April 12, 2007
BNUMBER: B-299369
DATE: April 12, 2007
***********************************
B-299369, AMS Group, April 12, 2007

   Decision

   Matter of: AMS Group

   File: B-299369

   Date: April 12, 2007

   Leo Reijnders for the protester.

   Jennifer L. Longmeyer-Wood, Esq., Department of Homeland Security,
   Immigration and Customs Enforcement, for the agency.

   Susan K. McAuliffe, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest that solicitation for security guard services contains
   inconsistent terms regarding required training is denied where
   solicitation read as a whole provides no support for protester's general
   allegations of impropriety or its allegation that it could not prepare a
   proposal in response to the solicitation.

   DECISION

   AMS Group protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No.
   PIADC-07-01, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration
   and Customs Enforcement, for security guard services at the Plum Island
   Animal Disease Center in New York. AMS contends that the solicitation
   contains inconsistent training provisions which prevented the preparation
   of its proposal. AMS primarily contends that a chart in the RFP that
   summarizes some training requirements omits the hours for additional
   training requirements called for in the RFP, such as government-provided
   basic training, baton training, and chemical agent spray training.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, issued as a small business set-aside on December 6, 2006,
   contemplates the award of a fixed-price contract for security guard
   services for a base year and four 1-year option periods. RFP at 1-3. The
   contractor is responsible for the provision of personnel and equipment to
   meet the agency's requirements, including the training of security guards.
   Id. at 15. The RFP's training requirements are primarily set out in a
   series of solicitation attachments, exhibits 4A through 4F of the RFP.[1]
   Id. at 84-106. The training required under the RFP constitutes a minor
   portion of the overall guard services work called for under the
   solicitation. Lists of topics to be covered in the training sessions were
   provided in the RFP; while the agency included recommendations for the
   amount of time to be spent on certain training topics, the RFP
   specifically advised that the contractor was to determine the amount of
   time to spend on any topic depending on the guards' comprehension of the
   material. Id. at 84, 101.

   To assist in the preparation of their price proposals, all offerors were
   instructed to refer to a pricing template located at attachment A to the
   RFP. Id. at 125. The pricing template listed the estimated number of hours
   of required training. These estimates were presented in terms of the
   estimated number of yearly training hours anticipated for an estimated
   number of 45 guards.

   AMS contends that the solicitation was defective for containing
   inconsistent training terms which allegedly prevented the firm from being
   able to prepare a proposal in response to the RFP. Specifically, AMS
   alleges that although there were additional training requirements provided
   in other sections of the RFP, a chart (at page 27 of the RFP) failed to
   list all of the RFP's training requirements, including the
   government-provided basic training required by exhibit 4C. Similarly, AMS
   argues that the chart failed to specifically mention the baton training
   requirement of exhibit 4E and the number of hours to be spent on chemical
   agent spray training under exhibit 4E. Another alleged inconsistency
   involves the RFP's requirement for 40 hours of annual refresher weapons
   training under exhibit 4F; the protester contends that this training
   requirement is inconsistent with an RFP instruction (at page 29, paragraph
   D of the RFP) that no specific additional training is required for a
   guard's annual requalification. [2]

   The agency, which reports that it received 12 proposals under the RFP, and
   that no other offeror questioned the RFP's training requirements, contends
   that, when read as a whole, the solicitation adequately presents the
   agency's training requirements, and that the protester's generally stated
   assertion that it was unable to prepare its proposal because of allegedly
   inconsistent terms in the RFP is unpersuasive. We agree.

   Where a dispute exists as to the actual meaning of a solicitation
   requirement, our Office will resolve the matter by reading the
   solicitation as a whole and in a manner that gives effect to all of its
   provisions. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc., B-278404.2, Feb. 9, 1998, 98-1 CPD
   para. 47 at 5. Here, as stated further below, although we cannot find that
   this solicitation for security guard services is a model of clarity
   regarding the agency's overall training requirements for the guards, we
   believe that, when read as a whole, the requirements are sufficiently
   clear to have allowed AMS to prepare its price proposal.

   Initially, although AMS asserts that a chart of training requirements
   included in the RFP is inconsistent with the training requirements set out
   elsewhere in the RFP, the record does not support the protester's
   contention. Although the RFP provides that all security guards working
   under this contract must take the training specified in the chart, there
   is no indication that the chart was intended or presented as a definitive
   and complete list of the numerous training requirements listed throughout
   the RFP. Instead, as discussed below, the solicitation must be read as a
   whole to assess the full extent of the training required here, including
   the requirements of exhibits 4A through 4F.

   While the protester asserts that the RFP's training chart failed to list
   the number of hours for chemical agent spray training (one training
   subject listed under exhibit 4E), the RFP, as noted above, specifically
   advised that the contractor was to decide how many hours would be
   necessary for each training topic. The omission of an estimate of hours
   for chemical agent spray training topic in no way prevented the protester
   from making that determination of hours for chemical agent spray training
   based on its own knowledge, experience, research, and business judgment.
   Additionally, while, as the protester points out, the RFP training chart
   also failed to include exhibit 4C's government-provided training hours,
   the solicitation makes clear that such training was mandatory under
   exhibit 4C. In short, we do not agree with the protester that the chart in
   any way created a material inconsistency in the RFP that prevented
   intelligent preparation of a proposal under the solicitation.

   As to the protester's other specific allegations--for instance, that the
   RFP is flawed for not listing baton equipment, under the RFP, the
   contractor was responsible for providing all equipment to perform the
   services required under this solicitation, including baton training; in
   our view, this would reasonably include the cost of the batons. Lastly,
   regarding the protester's contention that the requirement of 40 hours of
   annual refresher weapons training under exhibit 4F appears inconsistent
   with the RFP's general provision that no specific additional training is
   required for the guards' annual requalification, we agree that the
   solicitation is not a model of clarity concerning what "specific
   additional training" is referred to in the provision. Exhibit 4F, however,
   specifically requires no less than 40 hours of training using the course
   at exhibit 4E. Consequently, in our view, the solicitation's notation that
   no specific additional training is required can only refer to the fact
   that, in light of the mandatory training of exhibit 4F, no training for
   requalification beyond that referenced in exhibit 4F is required by the
   RFP.[3]

   In sum, the protester has not provided any persuasive support for its
   general assertion that alleged inconsistencies render the RFP defective or
   prevented intelligent preparation of a proposal under the RFP.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] Exhibit 4A provides for basic training for the guards, exhibit 4B
   provides for supervisory training, exhibit 4C describes certain
   government-provided training, exhibit 4D sets out requirements for
   refresher training every 3 years, exhibit 4E provides for the guards'
   initial weapons training and qualification, and exhibit 4F provides for
   annual refresher weapons training and qualification for the guards in
   accordance with the requirements of exhibit 4E, which were incorporated by
   reference.

   [2] To the extent AMS generally alleges that the training hours stated in
   the pricing schedule do not match training hours listed in the pricing
   template and exhibits 4A through 4F, the protester fails to provide
   sufficiently detailed support for the contention to constitute a valid
   basis of protest. AMS, for instance, fails to pinpoint what hours in which
   of the documents are allegedly inconsistent, and, as such, has failed to
   meet its obligation to present an adequately detailed statement of the
   factual and legal grounds for its protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4
   C.F.R. sect. 21.5(f) (2006). In its comments responding to the agency
   report, the protester for the first time challenges apparent mathematical
   errors in the pricing schedule regarding the estimated training hours for
   each year. (Specifically, AMS challenges that while 72 training hours are
   listed as the unit of hours per guard for each year, with a constant
   multiplier of 45 guards each year, i.e. 45 guards x 72 hours, there are
   different extended numbers of hours listed for each year.) The argument is
   untimely filed as it involves an apparent impropriety in the solicitation
   filed after the closing time for the receipt of proposals. 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.2(a)(1). We note, however, that despite the listing of the incorrect
   multiplier of 72 hours, the pricing schedule shows the same extended hours
   as those shown in the pricing template which offerors were specifically
   instructed to use in the preparation of their proposals; we think this
   information was adequate to allow for the preparation of a price proposal.

   [3] To the extent AMS contests the agency's decision not to conduct a site
   visit, the protester has not indicated what procurement statute or
   regulation allegedly has been violated by the agency's action. Moreover,
   the protester does not explain how a site visit would have provided the
   firm with additional insight as to the challenged training requirements.
   Additionally, to the extent the firm contends that the agency was required
   to respond to AMS's training questions raised shortly before the closing
   time for the receipt of proposals, the protester has provided no basis to
   question the propriety of the agency proceeding with receipt of proposals
   without providing a response to the protester's questions, given that
   those questions were not submitted until weeks after the question and
   answer period established under the RFP had ended. In our view, it was
   within the agency's discretion to proceed with receipt of proposals under
   the circumstances.