Areawide Services, Limited

B-265650.2 Dec 28, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested the Kennedy Center's rejection of its bid for uniformed security guard services, contending that the Center improperly excluded its bid from the competitive range. GAO held that the Center reasonably excluded the protester's bid from the competitive range, since: (1) the protester failed to show that it could develop operations manuals; (2) the protester's previous performance raised doubts about its ability to perform; and (3) there was evidence that the protester might not comply with the personnel testing requirements. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Matter of: Areawide Services, Limited File: B-265650.2 Date: December 28, 1995 Exclusion of the protester's proposal from the competitive range was reasonable where the proposal failed to show the protester's ability to develop and write operations manuals; where, based on the protester's performance on previous contracts, agency officials had reasonable concerns about the firm's ability to perform; and where information developed during proposal evaluation showed that the protester might not comply with personnel testing requirements. Attorneys DECISION Areawide Services, Limited protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. IBKC-95-002, issued by The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for uniformed security guard services. We deny the protest. The RFP required the submission of technical and price proposals to provide a force of security officers, including supervisors and a project manager, to provide guard services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a base year with 4 option years. The RFP contained five evaluation factors: (1) corporate organization/structure (including as subfactors management/supervision; prior experience), (2) recruitment of personnel (training, professionalism, background investigation, and screening), (3) quality control, (4) resources for additional personnel and services, and (5) transition plan (orientation; daily operations). Price was to be separately evaluated but not scored and was less important than the technical factors. Three proposals were included in the competitive range; five others (including Areawide's) were rejected as technically unacceptable. Generally, Areawide's proposal was rejected because it did not address, or contained inadequate responses to, various RFP requirements. For instance, the Center was unable to evaluate Areawide's claimed experience in developing and writing operations manuals since that portion of its proposal was merely a verbatim copy of the Center's current operations manual. Also, the Center concluded that Areawide's use of only one person, who was to have additional duties, to handle quality control was inadequate. Areawide's performance on other contracts also was viewed as marginal with respect to planning and effecting quality control. The recruiting, screening, and testing procedures set out in the proposal were considered vague, and the proposal contained no transition plan other than to state that, as the incumbent, Areawide would continue to perform as usual, notwithstanding that this procurement included increased requirements and an increased level of performance which, in the agency's view, made the development of a transition plan essential. Finally, a site visit by the evaluators to Areawide's corporate office (the Center states that its evaluators made similar site visits to each offeror) raised questions concerning the validity of portions of Areawide's proposal. For instance, while the proposal stated that the required 24-hour command post would be located in Areawide's corporate office, the Areawide employees indicated that a daytime post existed in the corporate office, but after-hours and on weekends that post shifted to a location at which Areawide was performing another contract. Also, although the proposal stated that three tests required by the RFP to determine the qualifications of potential security officers had been passed by Areawide's security officers, during the site visit the evaluators were told by Areawide's Director of Personnel that the testing had not been, and was not being, administered. Areawide rejects the Center's reasoning, contending first that the RFP did not require a single 24-hour command post and that even the use of two command posts--one for daytime and another for after-hours and weekends--would meet the RFP requirement. As to the three personnel tests specified by the RFP, Areawide, while maintaining that its employees did not advise the Center that the tests were not being used, states that the RFP, which required the tests to be administered to officers "within one year prior to being assigned to a security officer position," thus did not require that the tests be administered prior to award.