Star Detective & Security Agency, Inc. and E.L.A.

B-260948.3 Aug 21, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show that prior decision denying its protest contained errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. The subcontract was for unarmed security guard services under a request for proposals (RFP) issued as a small disadvantaged business (SDB) set-aside. Star/E.L.A. contends that our decision was based upon erroneous facts and law and should be reversed. Was going to perform more than 50 percent of the contract work. Which Star/E.L.A. argued would have precluded award to Jenkins had Jenkins honestly represented its intentions in its proposal. It has to be at least 51 percent unconditionally owned by one or more individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged and its management and daily business has to be controlled by one or more such individuals.". View Decision Matter of: Star Detective & Security Agency, Inc. and E.L.A. Security, Inc., a Joint Venture -- Reconsideration File: B-260948.3 Date: August 21, 1996 Request for reconsideration is denied where protester does not show that prior decision denying its protest contained errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the decision. Attorneys DECISION Star Detective & Security Agency, Inc. and E.L.A. Security, Inc., a Joint Venture (Star/E.L.A.) requests that we reconsider our decision, Star Detective & Sec. Agency, Inc. and E.L.A. Sec., Inc., a Joint Venture, B-260948.2, Aug. 28, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 90. In that decision, we denied Star/E.L.A.'s protest of the award of a subcontract to Jenkins Security & Investigations, Inc. by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a prime contractor with the Department of Energy (DOE). The subcontract was for unarmed security guard services under a request for proposals (RFP) issued as a small disadvantaged business (SDB) set-aside. Star/E.L.A. contends that our decision was based upon erroneous facts and law and should be reversed. We deny the request for reconsideration. In its protest, Star/E.L.A. argued that Jenkins's non-SDB subcontractor, Dynamic Security, Inc., was going to perform more than 50 percent of the contract work, which Star/E.L.A. argued would have precluded award to Jenkins had Jenkins honestly represented its intentions in its proposal. In response to this allegation, we stated, "under the RFP, in order for an offeror to be considered an SDB, it has to be at least 51 percent unconditionally owned by one or more individuals who are socially and economically disadvantaged and its management and daily business has to be controlled by one or more such individuals." Concerning whether Jenkins met this standard, we stated that the protester did not argue that Jenkins itself did not qualify as an SDB; rather, the protester alleged that Jenkins was going to allow Dynamic, a non-SDB subcontractor, to perform a significant portion of the work. We also stated that the protester did not point to anything in the RFP or other authority applicable to this contract which prohibited subcontracting by the SDB. Further, while we acknowledged that there was evidence in the record which supported the protester's view that Dynamic would contribute to the performance of the contract, we concluded that Fermilab reasonably found Jenkins eligible for award. In its reconsideration request, among other contentions, Star/E.L.A. argues that we erroneously concluded in our initial decision that the "RFP does not prohibit subcontracting." Star/E.L.A. notes that our decision stated "[t]he protester does not point to anything in the RFP or other authority applicable to this contract which prohibits subcontracting by the SDB." According to Star/E.L.A., this was erroneous because the solicitation included the following provision: "Limitations On Subcontracting 1. This clause applies if this subcontract was awarded as a result of a partial or total set aside for small business. 2. By submission of an offer and execution of a subcontract, the Offeror/Subcontractor agrees that in performance of the subcontract in the case of a subcontract for: (a) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of subcontract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern." According to Star/E.L.A., contrary to our initial decision, this provision "was a strict limitation on subcontracting in the solicitation." Under our Bid Protest Regulations, to obtain reconsideration, the requesting party must show that our prior decision may contain either errors of fact or law or present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of our decision. 4 C.F.R. Sec. 21.12(a) (1995).