Wackenhut International, Inc., B-286193, December 11, 2000

B-286193 Dec 11, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of State contract award for guard services, contending that State failed to evaluate the bidders' proposed compensation plans in accordance with the solicitation's evaluation criteria. GAO held that State failed to evaluate proposals in accordance with solicitation provisions calling for a comprehensive review of bidders' compensation plans. Accordingly, the protest was sustained, and GAO recommended that State (1) conduct and document an adequate review of the competitive range bidders' compensation plans consistent with the terms of the solicitation, (2) terminate the awardee's contract and make award to another bidder, if otherwise appropriate, and (3) reimburse the protester for its protest costs. View Decision Matter of: Wackenhut International, Inc. File: B-286193 Date: December 11, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wackenhut International, Inc. protests the award of a contract to U.S. Defense Systems, Inc. (USDS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. SOTH200-99-R-0001, issued by the Department of State for guard services at the American Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand. /1/ Wackenhut, the incumbent contractor of the guard services, protests the agency's failure to evaluate the offerors' proposed compensation plans in accordance with the RFP. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued September 27, 1999, contemplated the award of a time-and-materials contract, with fixed prices for vehicles and equipment, for a base year and 4 option years, to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price. RFP Secs. F.4.1, L Para. 52.216-1, M.1.2. Section M of the RFP set out the following evaluation criteria to be used in determining the acceptability of the offerors' technical proposals: management plan (i.e., for timely, professional, and quality contract performance, including anticipated incentive and payment terms); experience and past performance; and preliminary transition plan. RFP Secs. L.1.3.3, M.2. Section M, incorporating instructions provided in section L, advised offerors that, in order for a proposal to be considered technically acceptable, it "must provide the information requested in Section L and conform to the requirements of the solicitation as described in [the statement of work] . . . and the technical aspects of the remainder of the solicitation." Id. Price proposals were to be evaluated based on the total price to the government, including options and the application of a 10-percent price preference for U.S. firms. RFP Secs. M.3, M.4. Offerors were to provide, in the price schedules at section B of the RFP, their proposed prices in terms of fixed hourly rates based on the estimated number of labor hours for an extended "ceiling price" per stated labor category; certain fixed prices for vehicles and equipment were also required. RFP Sec. B.3. The stated labor categories included the following: guard; guard/driver; detector operator; senior guard; surveillance detection (SD) specialist; SD supervisor; and supervisor. RFP Sec. C.1.2.1-1.2.4. Most of the estimated labor hours for the contract were for the guard and senior guard positions. /2/ Each offeror was required to provide a total compensation plan for performance of the contract, since, according to the RFP, recompetition might result in lower compensation paid to employees, which could be "detrimental" to a firm's ability to obtain the quality of services needed for adequate contract performance. RFP Sec. L.1.3.4(2)(a). The solicitation included the following provision as to the required review of each offeror's compensation plan: The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. . . . The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. . . . Additionally, proposals 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 lowered compensation for essentially the same work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. . . . Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of the proposal. RFP Sec.