50 State Security Service, Inc.

B-272114 Sep 24, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights 1999 (when the installations covered by the contract are to be turned over to the government of Panama under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty). Closing date. 50 State's proposal was one of the four proposals determined by agency evaluators to be technically acceptable. 50 State. Which was not operating in Panama. Who was then the general manager for an incumbent firm. Offerors were told that the requested information must be available for the survey and that failure to comply could result in exclusion from the competition. One of the contracting officials stated that the presence of 50 State's proposed general manager presented a conflict of interest because that individual was currently employed by an incumbent contractor. View Decision Matter of: 50 State Security Service, Inc. File: B-272114 Date: September 24, 1996 Contracting officer reasonably found protester nonresponsible where the protester failed to promptly provide the necessary proof that it would be able to comply with the required performance schedule. Attorneys DECISION 50 State Security Service, Inc. protests its rejection as nonresponsible under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC92-96-R-0039, issued by the United States Army Garrison-Panama, for security guard services. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued April 15, 1996, contemplated the award of a firm, fixed- price contract to the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror for a base period of 4 months (June 1 through September 30, 1996) with 4 option year periods extending to December 31, 1999 (when the installations covered by the contract are to be turned over to the government of Panama under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty). The RFP cautioned offerors to submit sufficient information to enable the contracting officer to fully ascertain each offeror's capability to perform all of the requirements contemplated in the RFP. The agency received 10 proposals by the April 30, 1996, closing date. 50 State's proposal was one of the four proposals determined by agency evaluators to be technically acceptable. 50 State, which was not operating in Panama, proposed filling the majority of guard positions with incumbent guards. These guards had been recruited by 50 State's proposed general manager for the contract, who was then the general manager for an incumbent firm. On May 7, the contracting officer requested that the four acceptable offerors furnish specific information about their capabilities, including the "qualification[s] of personnel assigned to the project," for a pre- award survey to determine the offerors' responsibility. Offerors were told that the requested information must be available for the survey and that failure to comply could result in exclusion from the competition. The following day (May 8) 50 State's president and proposed general manager for the contract met with Army contracting officials in Panama to discuss the information requested by the agency. Before the meeting began, one of the contracting officials stated that the presence of 50 State's proposed general manager presented a conflict of interest because that individual was currently employed by an incumbent contractor, who also was competing for this contract. Accordingly, 50 State's president asked his proposed general manager to leave the meeting, and that individual did not participate further. The contracting officer's record of the May 8 meeting shows that he asked 50 State: "How are your people meeting minimum requirements (Bilingual, Experience, Police records)? Show me files." The contracting officer's record shows that 50 State responded: "119 People, list of names cannot be obtained. Can get in office." 50 State's president states in an affidavit that the Army ignored his offer at the meeting to put together such a list and provide it after the meeting. On May 9, the contracting officer transmitted letters to the offerors being considered for award, including 50 State, requesting that they provide, by the following day, copies of their business certificates to operate as security guard companies in accordance with a specified Panamanian government decree, or proof that the certification is being obtained and will be in effect on June 1 (which was the commencement date for performance of the contract). 50 State responded on May 10 that it had retained a Panamanian lawyer and would obtain the necessary business certificate "in a timely manner," and that there was a possibility that 50 State would be purchasing a Panamanian company that is already certified.