Master Security, Inc.

Master Security, Inc. BNUMBER: B-274990; B-274990.2 DATE: January 14, 1997 TITLE: Master Security, Inc. ********************************************************************** Matter of:Master Security, Inc. File: B-274990; B-274990.2 Date:January 14, 1997 Robert D. Banfield, Esq., and Paul J. Seidman, Esq., Seidman & Associates, P.C., for the protester. Manuel B. Oasin, Esq., and Harmon Eggers, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. Behn Miller, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Modifications to existing requirements contract for security guard services which increased the number of hours and added contract sites were proper since: (1) the solicitation advised offerors that the winning contractor would perform all the agency's security guard requirements in the specified geographic area over a 5-year period; (2) the increase in service hours and locations occurred within the solicitation's specified geographic scope; and (3) the nature and price of the required security guard services were not changed by the modifications and the addition of those requirements therefore would have had no impact on the original competition. 2. Protest challenging modifications to existing contract for security guard services on ground that agency used modifications to improperly add five sites outside the geographic scope of the originally awarded contract is denied where record shows that agency properly acquired services at the five new sites using small purchase procedures. 3. Where record shows that agency had an immediate, critical need for security guard services at a site, but was not in a position to proceed with fully competing the requirement, agency's utilization of small purchase procedures to make interim buys on an as-needed basis was proper. DECISION Master Security, Inc. (MSI) protests several modifications to contract No. GS-03P-95-DWD-0001, awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA) to Knight Protective Services for armed and unarmed security guard services at GSA facilities located in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland. MSI contends that GSA has improperly modified the Knight contract by issuing numerous modifications which have significantly increased the number of required guard service hours and contract sites beyond the original requirement. We deny the protest. The Knight contract was awarded on June 19, 1995 and called for the awardee to provide armed and unarmed guard services, on a delivery-order basis, for GSA facilities located in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland. The request for proposals (RFP) listed nine performance sites in the Baltimore City/Baltimore County area, and set forth an estimated quantity of 61,257 "basic" guard service hours and 3,000 "emergency" guard service hours per contract year. On April 17, 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed. Thereafter, GSA began receiving increased requests for security guard services at its federal buildings. With regard to the Knight contract, the record shows that for the first year of contract performance, Knight performed 106,407 hours of basic security guard services: 77,162 hours were performed at the original 9 contract locations, while 29,245 hours were performed at 16 new Baltimore City/Baltimore County sites which were added during the course of the base contract year. During option year 1--which began August 1, 1996--the record shows that Knight performed 135,655 hours of basic security guard services: 77,108 hours were performed at the original 9 locations; 52,607 hours were performed at the 16 new sites; 5,047 hours were performed at 5 new sites outside the Baltimore City/Baltimore County area; and 893 hours were performed at a site in Woodlawn, Maryland, on an emergency, interim basis. MSI contends that the increases in the number of hours and sites constitute improper modifications which exceed the scope of the original contract award and must be competed as a new requirement.[1] In making this argument, MSI maintains that because the original solicitation required offerors to maintain a reserve employee force "of sufficient size to cover an increase of 20 [percent] to the basic services," any modification which expands the required number of guard service hours beyond this percentage constitutes an increase beyond the scope of the contract. MSI also argues that because the solicitation identified only nine locations in the Baltimore City/Baltimore county area, adding 16 new locations beyond those identified in the RFP similarly constitutes an improper increase in the contract scope.