Wackenhut Services, Inc, B-286037; B-286037.2, November 14, 2000

Wackenhut Services, Inc, B-286037; B-286037.2, November 14, 2000 TITLE: Wackenhut Services, Inc, B-286037; B-286037.2, November 14, 2000 BNUMBER: B-286037; B-286037.2 DATE: November 14, 2000 ********************************************************************** Wackenhut Services, Inc, B-286037; B-286037.2, November 14, 2000 Decision Matter of: Wackenhut Services, Inc File: B-286037; B-286037.2 Date: November 14, 2000 William W. Goodrich, Esq., David A. Vogel, Esq., and Richard J. Webber, Esq., Arent Fox Kintner Plotkin & Kahn, for the protester. Myrna E. Friedman, Esq., Sargeant & Friedman, for SecTek, Inc., an intervenor. Scott W. Barber, Esq., National Imagery and Mapping Agency, for the agency. Marie Penny Ahearn, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where cost information was called for by solicitation to "validate that the proposed costs are consistent with the technical presentation," but fixed-price contract was to be awarded, agency was not required to conduct detailed cost analysis of awardee's proposal; agency conducted price analysis--consisting of comparison of awardee's price with others received and government estimate--and reasonably concluded that, since the prices were comparable, there was no basis for finding that awardee lacked understanding of the requirement. 2. Protest challenging evaluation of awardee's past performance is denied where awardee and protester both received high ratings from references, and protester's slightly better ratings were reasonably reflected in its somewhat higher consensus past performance rating. 3. Protest challenging decision to make award to offeror submitting higher-priced, higher-rated proposal is sustained where record includes inadequate documentation supporting selection decision. DECISION Wackenhut Services, Inc. protests the award of a fixed-priced award-fee contract to SecTek, Inc., under National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) request for proposals (RFP) No. NMA-401-00-R-0008, for armed guard services at the Washington Navy Yard. Wackenhut challenges the evaluation on several grounds, and argues that the agency failed to adequately document the rationale for its source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP provided that award would be made on a best value basis, and that proposals would be evaluated under the following factors: technical, management, security (pass/fail), and past performance. Management was more important than technical, which was more important than past performance, which was more important than price. The non-price factors were significantly more important than price. Price was not to be scored. RFP, as amended (hereinafter RFP), sect.sect. M-2 and M-3, at 38-41. NIMA received seven proposals. The agency conducted discussions and provided an opportunity for final proposal revisions; neither SecTek nor Wackenhut revised their proposal. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 4-5. SecTek and Wackenhut submitted the two highest-rated proposals as follows (with raw/weighted scores): [1] Tech. Mgmt. Past Security Total Total Perf. Raw Weighted Score Score SecTek 94/282 97/582 94/94 Pass 285 958 [2] Wackenhut 94/282 95/569 99/99 Pass 283 950 Consensus Evaluation; Memorandum for File at 2. NIMA conducted a price analysis to ensure that total prices were fair and reasonable. The agency determined that the price proposals of four offerors, including SecTek's and Wackenhut's, were reasonable based on adequate competition and favorable comparison to the government estimate. Negotiation Memorandum at 3. Wackenhut's offered price of $12,239,564 was the lowest of the four reasonably priced offers, and SecTek's, at $12,331,076, was second lowest. Abstract of Offers. The source selection team recommended award to SecTek and the source selection official (SSO) approved the recommendation. Navy Yard Guard Contract Recommendation at 1-2 (hereinafter Contract Recommendation). The agency then conducted a tradeoff analysis and determined that SecTek's proposal represented the "greatest value" to the government "amongst the highest rated proposals based on both cost and non-cost factors." Negotiation Memorandum at 13. In this regard, the agency stated that "the difference in capability between the higher rated SecTek and the lower rated Wackenhut [wa]s worth the marginal difference in price between SecTek and the slightly lower priced Wackenhut." Id.