Bannum, Inc.

Bannum, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271075; B-271076; B-271117 DATE: May 22, 1996 TITLE: Bannum, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Bannum, Inc. File: B-271075; B-271076; B-271117 Date:May 22, 1996 Kenneth A. Guckenberger, Esq., Rahdert & Anderson, P.A., for the protester. Elizabeth A. Nagy, Esq., Department of Justice, for the agency. Christine Davis, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency reasonably excluded protester's proposals from the competitive range under three solicitations, where the proposals essentially paraphrased the statement of work requirements and did not demonstrate whether the protester independently understood those requirements. DECISION Bannum, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposals from the competitive range under three requests for proposals (RFP), issued by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (BOP), for the operation of halfway houses for male and female federal offenders in Knoxville, Tennessee (RFP No. 200-295-MA or "Knoxville RFP"), Nashville, Tennessee (RFP No. 200-297-MA or "Nashville RFP"), and The Bronx, New York region (200-296-NE or "Bronx RFP"). We deny the protests. Each of the subject RFPs requested offers on a firm, fixed-price basis for estimated requirements for a 2-year base period with three 1-year options. The contractor under each RFP was to furnish the necessary facilities, equipment, and personnel to provide for the safekeeping and program needs of federal offenders ordered to be detained at the particular halfway house. Offerors were to propose a facility to serve as the halfway house, which would satisfy the requirements stated in the particular RFP statement of work (SOW). Offerors were to substantiate their right to use the proposed facility through "deeds, leases, bills of sale, options to lease, options to buy, contingency leases or contingency deeds." Estimated requirements varied between the RFPs; for example, requirements under the Bronx RFP were nearly double those under the Knoxville RFP. Also, the Bronx RFP required the contractor to operate a type of halfway house known as a community corrections center, while the Nashville and Knoxville RFPs required the contractor to operate a comprehensive sanction center, which is a more restrictive and supervised environment in which BOP corrections officials take part in overseeing offenders. Whether a comprehensive sanction center or a community corrections center was specified, each SOW required the contractor to offer certain baseline programs for its residents, such as employment counseling and placement services; academic, vocational, and job training; substance abuse and family counseling; community adjustment training; and post-release relocation services. The contractor was to develop a network of community resources and services, including referrals to other federal, state, and community agencies, in an effort to fulfill each resident's specific program needs. Each SOW charged the contractor with numerous oversight responsibilities to ensure that residents met disciplinary requirements, curfews, and various financial and programmatic responsibilities; for example, the contractor was responsible for monitoring each resident's whereabouts; monitoring each resident's employment and attendance; and performing random drug and alcohol tests and contraband searches. The contractor was required to assist with the development and enforcement of disciplinary policies and procedures, consistent with BOP's prohibited acts policy. Each RFP stated four equally important evaluation factors: Past Performance, Technical (including reports/policy/procedures, facility, and overall programs approach), Management, and Price. Under the technical and management factors, the agency was to evaluate the offeror's approach to performing the SOW requirements. The technical factor focused on the offeror's ability to achieve SOW requirements based upon its proposed facility, documentation, and operational procedures. The management factor focused on the offeror's ability to achieve SOW requirements based upon its management capability, corporate experience, and staffing approach. The solicitations advised that proposals which merely repeated, paraphrased or affirmed the SOW requirements were not acceptable and might be rejected. Bannum submitted proposals in response to the three solicitations.