United International Investigative Services, Inc., B-284871, June 15, 2000

B-284871 Jun 15, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest that request for proposals for guard services was ambiguous is denied where. There are no material discrepancies between the various RFP provisions as alleged by the protester. The protester alleges that the RFP is ambiguous because there are several material discrepancies between the original RFP's terms and provisions incorporated by amendment. Proposals were due by March 24. The RFP advised offerors that UIIS was the incumbent contractor. That current employees were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which controlled their wages and benefits. The RFP required any new contractor to give guards who were under contract with UIIS and who were terminated as a result of the change in contractors the right of first refusal for employment openings under the new contract for positions for which they were qualified. View Decision Matter of: United International Investigative Services, Inc. File: B-284871 Date: June 15, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION United International Investigative Services, Inc. (UIIS) protests several alleged improprieties in request for proposals (RFP) No. S-KE500-99-R-9999, issued by the Department of State for guard services. The protester alleges that the RFP is ambiguous because there are several material discrepancies between the original RFP's terms and provisions incorporated by amendment. We deny the protest. Issued on November 10, 1999, the RFP solicited offers for providing guard services at the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya; proposals were due by March 24, 2000. The RFP stated that the Embassy required guard services to prevent unauthorized access; protect life; maintain order; deter criminal attacks against employees, dependents and property; deter terrorist acts against all assets; and prevent damage to government property. RFP Sec. C.1.1. The RFP contemplated a level-of-effort contract, to be paid at fixed hourly rates, for a basic period of 1 year with options for 4 additional years. RFP Sec. B. The RFP stated that the contract would be awarded to the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror. RFP Secs. M.1.2, M.3. The RFP advised offerors that UIIS was the incumbent contractor, that current employees were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which controlled their wages and benefits, and that offerors could obtain a copy of the CBA upon written request. RFP, Cover Letter, at 2. The RFP required any new contractor to give guards who were under contract with UIIS and who were terminated as a result of the change in contractors the right of first refusal for employment openings under the new contract for positions for which they were qualified. RFP Sec. I.3. The RFP recognized that the competition might result in lower compensation being given to contractor employees and that reduced compensation might be detrimental to obtaining the quality of services needed. The RFP required offers to include an employee compensation plan which would be evaluated to ensure that it reflected a sound management approach and understanding of the requirements. The RFP stated that the compensation proposed would be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, realism, and consistency with the total compensation plan. RFP Sec. L.1.3.4(2)(a). The RFP specifically stated: [P]roposals envisioning compensation levels lower than the current contractor for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lower compensation for essentially the same work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. RFP Sec. L.1.3.4(2)(b). The RFP included a price adjustment clause that stated: The contract price may be increased or decreased in actual costs of direct service labor which result directly from laws enacted and effective during the term of this contract by the Kenyan Government, not actions taken by the Contractor solely in its implementation and execution of a Collective Bargaining Agreement. RFP Sec. B.5. A preproposal conference was held with potential offerors on December 8, 1999, at which time the contracting officer gave out copies of UIIS's CBA (as amended on September 1, 1998). Agency Report, Tab 51, Preproposal Conference Notes, at 2. At the end of that meeting, two UIIS employees distributed copies of a "draft" CBA (dated November 17, 1999) along with a letter from a Kenyan District Labour Officer (dated January 14, 1999) stating that any company taking over for UIIS as the Embassy guard services contractor would have to abide by UIIS's CBA with the union. /1/ The Embassy sought the advice of a local private attorney, who advised: [The CBA] was a personal agreement between [UIIS] and the Union.