Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-286971.2; B-286971.3, April 2, 2001

Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-286971.2; B-286971.3, April 2, 2001 TITLE: Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-286971.2; B-286971.3, April 2, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286971.2; B-286971.3 DATE: April 2, 2001 ********************************************************************** Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-286971.2; B-286971.3, April 2, 2001 Decision Matter of: Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. File: B-286971.2; B-286971.3 Date: April 2, 2001 William Myers for the protester. Charles Keathley for Paragon Systems, Inc., an intervenor. Terrence J. Tychan, Esq., Department of Health & Human Services; and John W. Klein, Esq. and Kenneth Dodds, Esq., Small Business Administration, for the agencies. Jacqueline Maeder, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Allegations that agency improperly downgraded protester's proposal and failed to conduct meaningful discussions do not provide a basis for sustaining protest where awardee's proposal received a near-perfect evaluation score and was lower-priced than protester's; since awardee would remain in line for award based on its lower price even if protester's evaluation score were increased to level of the awardee's, protester was not prejudiced by the alleged improprieties. 2. Agency's consideration of awardee's proposed subcontractor's past performance in evaluating awardee's proposal was proper where solicitation did not prohibit the use of subcontractors and specifically advised offerors of agency's intent to evaluate subcontractors' past performance. DECISION Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Paragon Systems, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. 263-00-P(BN)-0039, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for security guard services at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland. Myers argues that the evaluation of its offer was unreasonable, that discussions were inadequate, and that the agency improperly accepted the awardee's unauthorized joint venture/teaming arrangement with Coastal International Security, Inc. and improperly considered Coastal's past performance in evaluating Paragon's offer. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued August 24, 2000 as a competitive section 8(a) set-aside, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for security guard services at the NIH main campus and satellite offices for a base year, with 4 option years. Section M of the RFP provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the best value to the government, price and other factors considered, and stated that the government would not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to achieve only slightly superior performance, and that overall cost to the government could become the determining factor for award as the proposals become more equal based on the other factors. The RFP identified technical evaluation factors (and available points out of 100) for each factor as follows: understanding of and technical approach to performance requirements (25); corporate and human resources and key personnel (20); quality control program (20); ability to provide resources (20); and past performance/experience (15). Under the past performance/experience factor, offerors were to be evaluated based on their performance under contracts of similar size for similar services, and were to have at least five references submit a three-page past performance questionnaire provided by the agency. Regarding subcontracting, the RFP incorporated by reference the clause at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) sect. 52.219-14, Limitation on Subcontracting, which provides that, in a contract for services, at least 50 percent of contract costs for personnel shall be incurred by the prime contractor. RFP sect. I, at I-2. The RFP also advised offerors proposing subcontractors to include a statement with the proposal outlining, among other things, the subcontractor's willingness to perform and the time and facilities available for the project. RFP sect. L, at L-14. Seven proposals were received by the October 13 closing date. In its proposal, Paragon listed Coastal as its subcontractor, and submitted its subcontracting agreement with Coastal. HHS Agency Report, Tab VI, sect. 5, at 1-2. Paragon provided three past performance references for itself and two for Coastal. The proposals were evaluated by a four-member technical evaluation panel (TEP). Contracting Officer's Statement at 1. In its evaluation of Paragon's past performance, the TEP evaluated all five contracts listed by Paragon and its subcontractor. Id. at 5.