General Security Services Corporation, B-280388; B-280388.2,

General Security Services Corporation, B-280388; B-280388.2, BNUMBER: B-280388; B-280388.2 DATE: September 25, 1998 TITLE: General Security Services Corporation, B-280388; B-280388.2, September 25, 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:General Security Services Corporation File: B-280388; B-280388.2 Date:September 25, 1998 Robert A. Boonin, Esq., Butzel Long; and James A. Hughes, Esq., Robert S. Brams, Christy G. Slade, Esq., and William E. Slade, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. Gerald L. Elston, Esq., and Charles E. Coburn, Esq., U.S. Marshals Service, Department of Justice, for the agency. Valinda J. Astoria, Esq., Edgar Garcia, Esq., Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., and Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., for Akal, Inc., an intervenor. Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging areas of technical evaluation of protester's proposal is denied where protester either failed to rebut agency's explanation of why downgrading was appropriate, or failed to show that downgrading based on omission of information from proposal was unreasonable. 2. Protest against adequacy of documentation for revised scoring of protester's proposal is denied where, although individual evaluator scoring sheets contain little or no explanation for scoring changes, basis for downgrading proposal is documented elsewhere in record and establishes reasonableness of downgrading. 3. Protest that awardee's final proposed price should have been found unacceptable because it improperly failed to add fringe benefit rate to holiday pay, is denied where there was no requirement for payment of fringe benefit rate for holiday pay. DECISION General Security Services Corporation (GSSC) protests the evaluation of offers, and the award of a contract to Akal, Inc., under request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-CSC-97-R-0005, issued by the United States Marshals Service (USMS), Department of Justice, for court security services in the fifth federal circuit. We deny the protest. The RFP, as issued on March 17, 1997 and as amended, contemplated the award of a fixed-price indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. It requested offerors to provide individual court security officer (CSO) services, as well as managerial and supervisory personnel, and any materials, supplies, and equipment required in the performance of the contract. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to the terms of the RFP, was determined to be the most advantageous to the government, cost/price and technical factors considered. The solicitation listed in descending order of importance the following technical evaluation factors--corporate management, past related performance, and qualifications of key personnel. Offerors were to propose prices for five categories of services[1] and submit a wage compensation plan indicating employee wages and fringe benefits over the life of the contract. The technical factors were assigned 60 percent of the evaluation weight, and total price 40 percent. Twelve offers were received and evaluated by a nine-member technical evaluation board (TEB) during the week of June 20, 1997. At the request of the contracting officer, four members of the TEB reconvened during the week of July 26, 1997 to review the original TEB analysis. The reconvened TEB concurred with the original evaluation scores and generated additional documentation to support the original assigned scores. Six proposals were determined to be in the competitive range, including the awardee's and protester's. After two rounds of discussions, three rounds of best and final offers (BAFO), and further evaluation, Akal's lowest-evaluated-price offer--at $60,683,060.82--was rated the highest with a total score of 95.50 points (55.5 technical and 40.0 price). GSSC's fourth-low offer--at $64,511,132.11--was rated third overall with a total score of 86.43 points (48.8 technical and 37.63 price).[2] Award was made to Akal on March 30, based on a determination that no other offer presented technical advantages that warranted paying a premium above Akal's low price. GSSC raises numerous arguments challenging the evaluation and other aspects of the award process. We have reviewed the record and find these arguments to be without merit. We discuss several of the most significant arguments below. EVALUATION OF GSSC'S PROPOSAL GSSC challenges the evaluated deficiencies of its proposal under the management and past performance factors.