Securiguard/Group 4 Joint Venture, B-280429; B-280429.2; B-

Securiguard/Group 4 Joint Venture, B-280429; B-280429.2; B- BNUMBER: B-280429; B-280429.2; B-280429.3 DATE: September 30, 1998 TITLE: Securiguard/Group 4 Joint Venture, B-280429; B-280429.2; B- 280429.3, September 30, 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:Securiguard/Group 4 Joint Venture File: B-280429; B-280429.2; B-280429.3 Date:September 30, 1998 Karen D. Powell, Esq., and Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for the protester. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Christina Sklarew, Esq., and Paul Lieberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that agency improperly downgraded joint venture's past performance evaluation based on reported allegations of corruption during past contract performance by one joint venture partner is denied where agency raised its concern about the allegations during discussions and the protester's response substantially corroborated the agency's concern by conceding the existence of "irregularities" and acknowledging that the protester was conducting an ongoing investigation, and the response failed to provide adequate explanation of past actions, give specific assurance of how any recurrence would be prevented, or otherwise resolve agency's legitimate concerns. DECISION Securiguard/Group 4 Joint Venture (S/G4)[1] protests the Department of State's award of a contract to Securis under request for proposals (RFP) No. S-BE200-97-R-0036, for guard services for the American Embassy in Brussels, Belgium. S/G4 primarily alleges that the agency misevaluated the protester's past performance. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on July 18, 1997, contemplated the award of a 1-year guard services contract with four 1-year options. Section L of the solicitation instructed offerors to submit their offers in five volumes, which were to include executed standard forms, price proposal, technical proposal, business management proposal, and a statement regarding the offeror's eligibility for preference as a U.S. entity. For the technical proposal, the RFP required offerors to include a management plan and a description of past performance and experience. Under the past performance requirement, offerors were to list all contracts and subcontracts that the firm (or each partner in a joint venture) had performed over the past 3 years for the same or similar work. The RFP provided a detailed list of the information that should be included for each contract and subcontract, and stated the type of information that might be discussed with references provided in the proposal. In addition, section L.1.3.3(b)(1) of the RFP advised that: in the Government's evaluation of past performance, it may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. However, if any information obtained is considered unfavorable, an Offeror will have an opportunity to address this information as a part of its Best and Final Offer (BAFO), if BAFOs are requested. In Section M, the RFP advised offerors that technical proposals would be scored on a 60-point scale, and set forth the relative weight to be assigned to each of the factors and subfactors, as follows: A. Management Plan 30 points 1. Organization and Management 10 2. Inspection System 5 3. Key Personnel 10 4. Training Program 5 B. Experience and Past Performance 20 points 1. Past Performance and Experience15 2. Experience in use and maintenance of property 5 C. Preliminary Transition Plan 10 points In section M.3, the RFP provided the applicable formula for calculating price scores, based on a 40-point scale. Each proposal's technical score would be added to its price score to calculate overall score. An additional 5 points would be added to the scores of firms that were determined eligible to receive a preference as a U.S. person or qualified U.S. joint venture, as established by statute, 22 U.S.C.A. sec. 4864(c)(7) (West Supp. 1998), and explained in the RFP, and the proposal receiving the highest total point score would be considered to represent the best value to the government. The Department of State received six offers by the closing date for receipt of initial proposals, including S/G4's and Securis's. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed and scored the initial proposals.