Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7; B-284534.8, March 14, 2001

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7; B-284534.8, March 14, 2001 TITLE: Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7; B-284534.8, March 14, 2001 BNUMBER: B-284534.7; B-284534.8 DATE: March 14, 2001 ********************************************************************** Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs, B-284534.7; B-284534.8, March 14, 2001 Decision Matter of: Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; CASS, a Joint Venture--Costs File: B-284534.7; B-284534.8 Date: March 14, 2001 James J. Regan, Esq., Thomas P. Humphrey, Esq., John E. McCarthy, Esq., Daniel R. Forman, Esq., and Jennifer L Pomeranz, Esq., Crowell & Moring, and Neil H. O'Donnell, Esq., and Allen Samelson, Esq., Rogers, Joseph, O'Donnell & Quinn, for Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.; Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq., and Karen D. Powell, Esq., Petrillo & Powell, for CASS, a Joint Venture. Richard J. Webber, Esq., Matthew S. Perlman, Esq., and David A. Vogel, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for Wackenhut Services, Inc. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of the State, for the agency. Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. General Accounting Office (GAO) recommends that protesters be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing their protests challenging the evaluation and selection process where the contracting agency unduly delayed taking corrective action in response to the protests, which were clearly meritorious; corrective action was taken only after a GAO attorney conducted "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution. 2. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 provides the head of an executive agency with the authority to pay protest costs and proposal preparation costs where, in connection with a protest, the head of the agency determines that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with the requirements of law or regulation. DECISION Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. and CASS, a Joint Venture, request that we recommend that the firms be reimbursed the costs of filing and pursuing their protests challenging the award of a contract to Wackenhut Services, Inc. by the Department of State (DOS) under request for proposals No. S-OPRAQ-99-R-0001 for uniformed protective services for domestic DOS facilities. We recommend that DOS reimburse Inter-Con and CASS their protest costs. The RFP provided for the award of an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide uniformed protective services at various locations for a base year with 4 option years. A cost/technical tradeoff basis for award was provided, and the RFP listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: technical/management; relevant experience/past performance; and cost/price. With respect to cost/price, offerors were informed that cost/price would be evaluated for reasonableness and cost realism. Proposals were received from a number of firms, including Inter-Con, CASS, and Wackenhut, whose proposals were included in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted, and revised proposals received. Wackenhut's proposal was selected to receive award, and Inter-Con and CASS protested to our Office (B-284534.3, B-284534.4, B-284534.5, B-284534.6). Inter-Con and CASS challenged the technical evaluation, cost realism evaluation, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision. The agency filed a report responsive to the protests, and the protesters and intervenor filed comments on the agency's report. On January 19, 2001, after receipt of the comments, the General Accounting Office (GAO) attorney handling the protests conducted an "outcome prediction" alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference with the parties. [1] The parties were informed that from our review of the record, including the parties' arguments, it was clear that there was a core problem with the agency's procurement actions relating to the agency's price evaluation that infected the agency's selection decision. [2] We also expressed significant concern with the agency's conduct of discussions in this respect. In sum, the parties were informed that the likely outcome of the protests was that the protests would be sustained. They were also informed that the likely protest recommendation would be to reopen the competition, conduct new discussions that would inform offerors of the basis upon which their price proposals would be considered and that would obtain sufficient information to allow a reasonable assessment of cost realism, and make a new source selection decision. On January 23, the DOS informed us and the parties that the agency had decided to take corrective action in response to the protests by reopening the competition and amending the solicitation.