Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-287949.2, July 27, 2001

B-287949.2 Jul 27, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Protest is sustained where agency chooses not to defend against the protest and effectively concedes that the challenged evaluation and selection decision were not properly done by acknowledging that no adequate documentation of the agency's actions exists. The award decision was based on a consideration of both past performance and price. GSA acknowledges that there were "many verbal exchanges" between the offerors and the agency that were not documented. It is not in the government's interest to expend further resources to defend the protest. Is not feasible because of the short duration of the contract at issue and the nature of the services involved. GSA states that the services are performed at federal buildings in the Lumberton area. View Decision Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc., B-287949.2, July 27, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. protests the award of a 60-day "bridge" contract by the General Services Administration (GSA) to Industrial Loss Prevention, Inc. for guard services for federal buildings in the Lumberton, North Carolina area. We sustain the protest. By letter dated May 30, 2001, GSA requested proposals for guard services at various locations in Lumberton, North Carolina, for a 30-day base period, with one 30-day option period. /1/ The letter did not explicitly state the basis for award, but requested that offerors provide prices only. Specifically, the letter called for offerors to furnish "rates for productive hours, additional hours and supervisory hours, and a cost breakdown of how you obtained your rates." On May 31, GSA made award to Industrial Loss Prevention for a 60-day period. Myers contends that, while GSA solicited offers based on price alone, the award decision was based on a consideration of both past performance and price. Myers also asserts that GSA improperly evaluated the past performance of the awardee and of Myers, and improperly failed to give Myers an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information that GSA considered in the evaluation. In a letter dated June 20, GSA states that it "has decided not to take corrective action or submit a defense in the subject protest." Specifically, GSA acknowledges that there were "many verbal exchanges" between the offerors and the agency that were not documented; in the absence of such documentation, GSA states, it is not in the government's interest to expend further resources to defend the protest. GSA states that corrective action--such as termination of the current contract and recompetition--is not feasible because of the short duration of the contract at issue and the nature of the services involved. Specifically, GSA states that the services are performed at federal buildings in the Lumberton area, that there have been numerous changes in contractor personnel, and that further disruption in service would pose a security risk. /2/ GSA states that it instead will allow the current contractor to complete the 60-day term of the challenged contract, and will then issue a solicitation for a new interim contract, which will allow sufficient time for GSA to re-evaluate offers for the statewide guard contract. GSA has offered to reimburse Myers its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Myers declined GSA's offer, instead requesting that we issue a decision on its protest. We interpret GSA's decision not to defend against the protest, together with its statement that adequate documentation of the actual evaluation and selection does not exist, as, in effect, a concession that the evaluation and award decision were not done properly. In the absence of any evidence to show that the evaluation and award decision were properly done, and in view of GSA's decision not to defend against the protest, we sustain the protest. See, e.g., JAFIT Enterprises, Inc., B-266326, B-266327, Feb. 5, 1996, 96-1 CPD Para. 39 at 2 (protest sustained where agency essentially conceded that its sole-source award of "bridge" purchase orders was not authorized under any statute, but did not take corrective action). Given that the 60-day contract period has elapsed and performance has been completed, and that GSA has awarded a new interim contract as promised, we recommend that GSA reimburse Myers the costs it incurred in preparing its offer and in filing and pursuing the protest. /3/ The protest is sustained. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel 1. GSA's solicitation here seeks guard services for an interim period during which GSA completes re-evaluation of offers for a state-wide contract for these services. That re-evaluation is the corrective action undertaken in response to an earlier protest filed by Myers, B-287648, challenging the award of the state-wide contract. 2.