Ideal Electronic Security Company, B-279221; B-279221.2, May

Ideal Electronic Security Company, B-279221; B-279221.2, May BNUMBER: B-279221; B-279221.2 DATE: May 19, 1998 TITLE: Ideal Electronic Security Company, B-279221; B-279221.2, May 19, 1998 ********************************************************************** DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Matter of:Ideal Electronic Security Company File: B-279221; B-279221.2 Date:May 19, 1998 Kenneth Martin, Esq., Martin & Rylander, for the protester. Joseph P. Hornyak, Esq., and Drew W. Marrocco, Esq., Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, for SCIENTECH, Inc., an intervenor. Diane M. Canzano, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to evaluate proposals reasonably and in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria is denied where the record does not support the allegations; a protester's mere disagreement with the agency's conclusions does not render the evaluation unreasonable. 2. Allegation that agency misled protester to curtail price reduction in its best and final offer (BAFO) is denied where record shows that the protester was merely advised that its price was competitive and its escalation rates appeared reasonable and within anticipated increases; protester's determination as to what extent to lower its BAFO price reflects its own business judgment. DECISION Ideal Electronic Security Company protests the award of a contract to SCIENTECH, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-98-05(N), issued by the Department of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) for the acquisition of the BEP security system maintenance, installation, operation, and engineering support services. Ideal challenges the agency's evaluation of Ideal's proposal and asserts that the agency conducted misleading discussions which caused Ideal not to lower its final price to the full extent that it could have. We deny the protest. The BEP security system consists of a Monitor Dynamics Inc. (MDI) access control and intrusion detection security system (ACAMS), American Dynamics Closed Circuit Television System (CCTV) and an Imaging Technology Corporation (ITC) video badging system. The MDI security system is an alarm monitor system which operates through a central computerized alarm monitor and a series of peripheral alarm devices. The CCTV system permits monitoring and recording through various stages of production, transportation and storage. The ITC system produces and maintains the integrity of BEP's selected access control security badges and interfaces with the MDI system to allow for the transfer of badge holder data to the MDI system where the badge holder will then be specifically and separately programmed for the required access rights. The RFP, issued on October 27, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract with labor hour and requirement line items for the operation and monitoring of the security system, including the MDI, CCTV, ITC and fire management system (FMS). The RFP stated that a minimum of 35 employees were required as security system operators and required offerors to submit resumes for key personnel that clearly demonstrated experience with security engineering design, installation maintenance, testing, training, and systems operation. Offerors were also required to provide minimum qualification statements for all other proposed personnel who would be performing under the contract. The RFP advised that award would be made on the basis of the proposal determined to be most advantageous to the government, price and technical factors considered. The RFP provided for a two phase evaluation process. Under Phase I, proposals were evaluated on the following three factors: (a) experience of proposed personnel; (b) corporate experience; and (c) past performance. In order to be included in the competitive range for Phase I and proceed to Phase II, offerors had to receive a pass rating for criteria (a) and (b). Under Phase II, offerors were required to give an oral presentation and the proposals were evaluated on two factors, management plan (62.5 points) and organizational experience (37.5 points), each of which included several subfactors.