OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation, B-282630.2, September 22, 1999

B-282630.2 Sep 22, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Where proposal was at best ambiguous regarding offeror's understanding of and compliance with solicitation's prohibition against using a uniformed security guard as project manager. Determination that protester's proposal was unacceptable without discussions was reasonable and consistent with solicitation. 2. Protester is not an interested party to raise issues concerning evaluation of the awardee. OMNIPLEX asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable or inconsistent with the criteria set forth in the RFP and protests the agency's decision to make an award based on initial offers. Provided for an award to the offeror whose proposal was "most advantageous to the Government. View Decision Matter of: OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation File: B-282630.2 Date: September 22, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION OMNIPLEX World Services Corporation protests the award of a contract to Securiguard, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00600-98-R-1489, issued by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC), Department of the Navy, for armed security guard services. OMNIPLEX asserts that the evaluation of its proposal was unreasonable or inconsistent with the criteria set forth in the RFP and protests the agency's decision to make an award based on initial offers. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On May 4, 1998, the Navy issued the RFP for services at National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) buildings in Washington, D.C. (Archives I), and Adelphi, Maryland (Archives II), for a 1-year base period with four 12-month option periods. /1/ The RFP, paragraph M.3(b), Contract Award-Best Value, provided for an award to the offeror whose proposal was "most advantageous to the Government," considering price and other factors; these factors included three management factors, of which M-2 (personnel) was most significant and M-1 (management plan) was second in importance. The agency would also consider past performance, technical understanding and approach (factor T-1) and quality control (factor M-3), in that order of importance. The RFP also listed several subfactors and elements of those subfactors. Factor M-2 contained three equally weighted subfactors; the first two subfactors, key personnel (M-2.1) and staffing and recruiting (M-2.2) consisted of three equally weighted elements. The third subfactor, additional security services (M-2.3), consisted of two equally weighted elements. Factor M-1 contained five subfactors, M-1.1 to M-1.5, in descending order of importance; one of these subfactors, M-1.1 (organization and management) contained six elements, M-1.1.1 to M-1.1.6, in descending order of importance. Subfactors M-1.2 through M-1.5--corporate resources, training and certification, subcontractor management, and transition--contained no elements. The schedule, at the second page of the solicitation, advised offerors that a project manager was "essential" to performance, and the RFP contained a separate line item for project management. RFP at B-2, B-4. Section C of the RFP contained the statement of work (SOW), which addressed project management in the third section, RFP Para. C.3, Management and Administration, after the overview of services (RFP Para. C.1) and the general requirements (RFP Para. C.2). The RFP advised offerors as follows: CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION IS CONSIDERED CRITICAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS CONTRACT. Failure on the part of the Contractor to furnish, at all times, a competent and knowledgeable project manager, and such supervision as required herein, may render the Contractor subject to default. RFP Para. C.3.a. Paragraph C.3b required a contractor to assign "another individual of equal or greater qualifications" when the project manager was unavailable for any reason. Paragraph C.3.2 of the RFP set forth the duties of the project manager, who would be "the single point of contact through which all Contractor/Government communications, work, and technical direction shall flow" and prohibited a contractor from appointing any of the uniformed security guards to perform the duties of the project manager. Paragraph L.8 of the RFP provided instructions for proposal preparation; in pertinent part, Para. L.8.2(c) of the RFP directed offerors to submit completed past performance questionnaires (Attachment 17, section J of the RFP) with their proposals, for the evaluation of past performance. Paragraph L.9 of the RFP provided for an oral presentation by "[o]fferors in the competitive range." As noted above, RFP Para. M.3 provided for an award on the basis of best value. The clause is a FISC version of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause providing for award without discussions, but here contained a typographical error, as follows (emphasis supplied): The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract with discussions with offerors.