General Security Services Corporation, B-280959; B-280959.4,

General Security Services Corporation, B-280959; B-280959.4, BNUMBER: B-280959; B-280959.4 DATE: December 11, 1998 TITLE: General Security Services Corporation, B-280959; B-280959.4, ********************************************************************** Matter of:General Security Services Corporation File:B-280959; B-280959.4 Date:December 11, 1998 James A. Hughes, Esq., Robert S. Brams, Esq., William E. Slade, Esq., and Rodney A. Grandon, Esq., Patton Boggs, for the protester. Donald E. Barnhill, Esq., and Joan K. Fiorino, Esq., Douglas & Barnhill, for Akal Security, Inc., an intervenor. Joni M. Gibson, Esq., U.S. Marshals Service, for the agency. Andrew T. Pogany, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Contracting agency properly normalized pricing element of solicitation (wages of court security officers) where agency reasonably determined that security needs precluded permitting offerors to propose wages below the wages currently being paid to such personnel. DECISION General Security Services Corporation (GSSC) protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-98-R-0008, issued by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), Department of Justice, for court security services at eight Federal Circuits. GSSC principally argues that the RFP's price evaluation scheme unduly restricts competition. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on June 22, 1998, contemplates multiple awards (one award for each Federal Circuit) of indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery and time-and-material type contracts, with fixed unit prices. RFP sec. L-6. The RFP states that award will be made to that offeror whose proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the best value to the government, cost/price, technical, and past performance considered. RFP sec. M-1. The RFP states that technical considerations are more important than price and that past performance is less important than technical or price considerations. RFP sec. M-5, M-6. On July 24, the agency issued amendment No. A003, the subject of this protest, which provides, in section B, as follows: Court security is important to the mission of the USMS. In order to ensure a stable and experienced workforce, the prospective contractor shall, at a minimum, maintain the wages and benefits currently paid to the incumbent Site Supervisors, Lead Court Security Officers [LCSO] and Court Security Officers [CSO] in the Court Security Program. For evaluation purposes only, offerors shall propose Site Supervisor, LCSO and CSO rates using the applicable Wage Determination rate plus $3.00 for Site Supervisors, $2.00 for LCSOs and $1.00 for CSOs or the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rate. CBAs are applicable to this solicitation. The USMS intends to amend the solicitation at a later time to incorporate the CBAs once the Department of Labor [DOL] has reviewed them. Offerors shall propose the applicable CBA rate and where there is no CBA rate, the applicable Wage Determination rate plus the USMS cost adjustment as indicated above.[1] The RFP further states, in section M-7, that after award the agency will adjust, upward or downward, the total burdened rate for site supervisors, LSCOs and CSOs to reflect actual current wages for incumbent personnel; that rates for new or replacement CSOs shall be paid at the wage determination rate; and that rates for new or replacement LSCOs and site supervisors shall be negotiated during contract performance. USMS states that these provisions are necessary because, in the past, recompetition of court security services has resulted, in some cases, in lower compensation, including salaries and fringe benefits, being paid to CSOs. For example, in response to the Second Judicial Circuit solicitation issued last year, offerors proposed wages lower than those paid by the incumbent contractor (the incumbent's wages were higher than the applicable wage rate). Low morale and labor unrest followed. There were numerous threats of strikes by CSOs and complaints to federal judges who, in turn, compDedcejmlained to the USMS and to Congress. According to the agency, "reductions [of wages and fringe benefits from incumbent levels] can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of services needed for adequate contract performance and thus, jeopardizes the safety of the federal judges and court personnel." Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement of Fact, Oct. 5, 1998, at 2. Thus, the wage rate restriction was imposed to maintain incumbent wages and benefits. The protester argues that the cost adjustment provision in amendment No. A003 (and a similar provision added by amendment No.