Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc.

Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc. BNUMBER: B-271385.4; B-271385.5; B-271385.6; B-271385.7; B-271385.8 DATE: September 23, 1996 TITLE: Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc. ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A protected decision was issued on the date below and was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been redacted or approved by the parties involved for public release. Matter of:Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; MVM, Inc. File: B-271385.4; B-271385.5; B-271385.6; B-271385.7; B-271385.8 Date:September 23, 1996 John E. McCarthy, Jr., Esq., James J. Regan, Esq., and Paul Shnitzer, Esq., Crowell & Moring, for Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc.; Barbara S. Kinosky, Esq., Bean, Kinney & Korman, and James S. Phillips, Esq., for MVM, Inc., the protesters. Neil H. O'Donnell, Esq., and Patricia A. Meagher, Esq., Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn, for Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Kathleen D. Martin, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Allegation that agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal is denied where evaluation documentation shows that the ratings assigned to the proposal were reasonable and reflected the solicitation's stated evaluation criteria. 2. Protest that awardee's proposal was unbalanced is denied where there is no doubt that the awardee's proposal will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the government because the solicitation's estimates reasonably reflect the government's anticipated requirements. 3. "Cost realism" ordinarily is not considered in the evaluation regarding the award of a fixed-price contract, since the contract places upon the contractor the risk and responsibility for loss. Moreover, the fact that an offer may not include any profit or may be an attempted buy-in (below cost) does not, in itself, render an otherwise responsible firm ineligible for award. 4. Protest that the agency failed to adequately analyze the awardee's low price in making the award selection is denied where (1) the agency's price analysis was reasonably based on comparing the awardee's price with the other prices that it received in response to the solicitation and performing a crosswalk analysis to ensure that the awardee's proposed methodology for meeting certain technical requirements was supported by the awardee's proposed prices, and (2) the awardee's price remains low under any adjustment scenario. DECISION Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. and MVM, Inc. protest the Department of State's (DOS) award of a contract to Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. to provide uniformed armed and unarmed guard services at various State Department facilities under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-OPRAQ-94-R-0434. We deny the protest. The RFP sought proposals to provide qualified professional security and managerial personnel to perform uniformed guard services, such as access control, security for special events, and security inspections, at various State Department facilities. The RFP contemplated the award of an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity labor hours contract with firm, fixed hourly rates for a base year, with 4 option years. The solicitation advised offerors of the various specified management and security officer positions and the labor hour estimates for each facility. Offerors were required to provide a base hourly rate and a loaded hourly rate for each year for each of the various positions specified in the RFP. The RFP provided that this contract was subject to the Service Contract Act (SCA), 41 U.S.C. sec. 351-358 (1994), which requires the contractor to pay its covered employees minimum wages and fringe benefits, as determined by the Department of Labor. Amendment No. 10 stated that: "The only CLIN labor category in this solicitation covered by the Service Contract Act is the position of Uniformed Security Technician (Unarmed), CLIN 12. This position is covered by the Department of Labor (DOL) category of 'Guard II', and is subject to the minimum wage determination attached thereto." The RFP designated technical factors and their relative weights, and stated that award would be made on a best value basis with technical factors more important than price. The agency received 10 proposals. Following evaluation of initial proposals, the technical evaluation panel (TEP) established a competitive range of six proposals, including those of MVM, Am-Pro, and Inter-Con. The agency conducted written discussions with each competitive range offeror and requested revised proposals.