Integrity International Security Services, Inc.

B-261226 Sep 01, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Although price was said to be the determining factor between proposals determined to be technically equal. Numerous proposals were submitted and almost all were included in the competitive range. [2] The agency conducted multiple rounds of oral discussions and requested four separate BAFOs. The relevant events leading up to the award decision are as follows. Integrity's second BAFO did not demonstrate compliance with the collective bargaining agreement requirements and did not include the hours for two new guard positions added by amendment 2. [4] A third round of discussions was conducted. Third BAFOs were requested and received. Integrity's exclusion from the third round of BAFOs was due to uncertainty about Integrity's eligibility to compete as an 8(a) contractor. [5] SSA subsequently determined that Integrity was eligible to compete. View Decision Matter of: Integrity International Security Services, Inc. File: B-261226 Date: September 1, 1995 Agency failed to conduct meaningful discussions where the preponderance of the evidence in the record does not support the agency's account that it advised the protester of the central deficiency in the protester's proposal during discussions. Attorneys DECISION Integrity International Security Services, Inc. protests an award to Areawide Services Limited under request for proposals (RFP) No. SSA-RFP- 95-1747, issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA) for armed guard services at two sites in Baltimore, Maryland. We sustain the protest because the agency did not conduct meaningful discussions. The RFP, issued on May 25, 1994, contemplated award of a fixed-price contract to an 8(a) contractor for 1 year with 4 option years. [1] The RFP provided a best value evaluation scheme with technical factors being more important than price, although price was said to be the determining factor between proposals determined to be technically equal. Numerous proposals were submitted and almost all were included in the competitive range. [2] The agency conducted multiple rounds of oral discussions and requested four separate BAFOs. The relevant events leading up to the award decision are as follows. On November 17, after the receipt of the initial BAFOs, SSA issued amendment 2 to the RFP, which, among other things, changed the contract start date, incorporated a collective bargaining agreement into the RFP, added two guard positions to one of the site locations, and requested a second round of BAFOs be submitted by December 12. The collective bargaining agreement set the wages for security guards and corporals, and provided for annual wage and benefit increases which would apply to this contract as of the contract start date, and as of November 1 in 1995 and 1996. The two new guard positions added approximately 10,000 labor hours per year. The competitive range offerors submitted a second round of BAFOs. The SSA audit staff audited the second BAFO cost proposals and issued an audit report dated December 15. [3] This audit report determined that the majority of offerors had failed to accurately reflect the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in their second BAFOs. SSA determined that discussions should be reopened to address the widespread failure to comply with the collective bargaining agreement requirements. Integrity's second BAFO did not demonstrate compliance with the collective bargaining agreement requirements and did not include the hours for two new guard positions added by amendment 2. [4] A third round of discussions was conducted, but not with Integrity, and third BAFOs were requested and received, but not from Integrity. Integrity's exclusion from the third round of BAFOs was due to uncertainty about Integrity's eligibility to compete as an 8(a) contractor. [5] SSA subsequently determined that Integrity was eligible to compete. There were oral discussions with Integrity's contract representative concerning Integrity's second BAFO cost proposal shortly before final BAFOs were received, the content of which is in dispute. By letter dated February 2 to the competitive range offerors, SSA confirmed the oral discussions and requested final BAFOs be submitted February 10. The text of this letter was basically the same for all of the offerors. Among other things, the letter reminded offerors that the cost proposal should be consistent with the collective bargaining agreement incorporated by amendment 2 and admonished offerors to include all contract requirements in their prices. Integrity's final BAFO still did not include hours for the two new guard positions. SSA determined that most of the competitive range offerors were technically equal and determined that award would be made on the basis of price, and preliminarily selected Integrity's lowest-priced final BAFO for award.