Farnham Security, Inc., B-280959.5, February 9, 1999

B-280959.5 Feb 09, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Evaluation was proper where. There was sufficient correlation between stated factors and the detailed factors applied that prospective offerors were on notice of the evaluation criteria to be applied. Issued by the United States Marshals Service for security services at various Federal Circuits. /1/ FSI contends that the exclusion of its proposal was based on the agency's improper application of undisclosed evaluation criteria that previously had been deleted by solicitation amendment. Eight proposals were received by the September 3 due date and evaluated by the technical evaluation board (TEB). The technical and price results were as follows (Agency Report (AR). FSI maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals by applying technical evaluation criteria that were part of an earlier (and far more detailed) iteration that had been significantly altered by amendment No. View Decision Matter of: Farnham Security, Inc. File: B-280959.5 Date: February 9, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Farnham Security, Inc. (FSI) protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. MS-98-R-0008, issued by the United States Marshals Service for security services at various Federal Circuits. /1/ FSI contends that the exclusion of its proposal was based on the agency's improper application of undisclosed evaluation criteria that previously had been deleted by solicitation amendment. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued June 22, 1998, contemplated the award of an indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery, time-and-materials contract for each of the judicial circuits. RFP Sec. L-6. The RFP stated that award for each circuit would be made to the offeror whose proposal provided the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. RFP Sec. M-1(b). The RFP, as amended, contained the following evaluation criteria, listed in descending order of importance: (1) technical (with subfactors of corporate management, court security officer (CSO) turnover and disruption, and qualifications of key personnel); (2) price (including evaluation of options for a base year and four 1-year option periods); and (3) past performance. RFP secs. M-5 to M-7. Eight proposals were received by the September 3 due date and evaluated by the technical evaluation board (TEB). The agency used a point scoring system (with a 500-point maximum) for the rating under the technical factor; these scores correlated to adjectival ratings of outstanding, acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and unacceptable. The agency also prepared a table converting its scoring to show rankings based on a 100-point scale. The technical and price results were as follows (Agency Report (AR), Tab 6, Initial Competitive Range Determination, at 3-6): /2/ Firm Total Score Raw Technical Score Adjectival Price (Max. 100 (Max. 500 pts.) Rating (millions) pts.) Offeror 95 483 outstanding $145.5 A Offeror N/A /3/ 430 acceptable $154.0 B Offeror 90 434 acceptable $144.9 C Offeror 86 432 acceptable $155.7 D Offeror 84 405 acceptable $157.4 E Offeror 79 358 conditionally $147.1 F acceptable Offeror 79 326 conditionally $146.5 G acceptable FSI 71 275 unacceptable $157.8 By decision dated October 19, the agency excluded only FSI's proposal from the competitive range based on its technical and price ranking. AR, Tab 6, at 7. This protest followed. FSI maintains that the agency misevaluated proposals by applying technical evaluation criteria that were part of an earlier (and far more detailed) iteration that had been significantly altered by amendment No. A003. FSI notes in this regard that the solicitation as initially issued contained more than two pages of text of the detailed factors and subfactors of corporate management, Protester's Comments at 4, and that, after amendment No. A003, the RFP stated only as follows: The Offeror shall prepare and submit for evaluation by the Government a management plan that indicates to the Government whether the offeror has a clear knowledge of the scope of the work to be performed. The management plan must address how the offeror will 1) provide a comprehensive security program, 2) address employee recruitment and selection process, 3) address methods of verifying employee's past record of performance and/or experience, 4) specify supervisory and corporate staffing levels for performance and administration, 5) provide a corporate management communication plan from transition through contract performance, 6) address proposed administrative controls for monitoring the contract, 7) assure CSO personnel are physically and mentally fit, 8) address procedures for personnel problems and discipline, and 9) guarantee weapons proficiency. RFP, amend. A003, Sec.