Omniplex World Services Corporation, B-290996.2, January 27, 2003

B-290996.2 Jan 27, 2003 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Based solely on a minimum requirement for direct corporate experience that was neither stated in the solicitation nor disclosed to offerors prior to proposal submission. Was improper. Were slightly more important than price. The technical factors and their corresponding weights were as follows: 1. "the extent to which the experience was/is similar to the requirements identified by this RFP.". In order to determine whether an offeror "has experience that will enhance its technical and managerial capability to perform.". The experience subfactor was stated as follows: The Offeror's guard/custody officer experience that is similar in size. Complexity will be evaluated to determine the capability to perform the work under this contract. View Decision Omniplex World Services Corporation, B-290996.2, January 27, 2003 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Omniplex World Services Corporation protests the elimination of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. ACB-2-R-0029, issued by the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS), Department of Justice, for custody officer services at the Krome Service Processing Center and the Miami International Airport, in Miami, Florida. Omniplex protests the evaluation of its experience as technically unacceptable. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued May 17, 2002, contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for 1 year with 4 option years. The RFP stated that the technical factors, when combined, were slightly more important than price. RFP M.2(a). The technical factors and their corresponding weights were as follows: 1. Experience/Past Performance a. Experience (30 points) b. Past Performance (Adjectival Rating)/1/ 2. Key Personnel/Staffing (30 points) 3. Financial Capability (20 points) 4. Quality Control Plan (10 points) 5. Training (5 points) 6. Records & Reports (5 points). RFP Sec. M.2(c). With regard to the experience subfactor, the RFP's proposal instructions requested offerors to describe their experience providing "similar or related" services to those stated in the RFP, and "the extent to which the experience was/is similar to the requirements identified by this RFP." The RFP also requested offerors to demonstrate their "ability to manage custody officers in a medium to large-scale facility," and requested information about the number of persons guarded or secured under prior contracts. RFP Sec. L.13(a.1). The RFP stated that the evaluation under the experience/past performance factor would be subjective and based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, in order to determine whether an offeror "has experience that will enhance its technical and managerial capability to perform." The experience subfactor was stated as follows: The Offeror's guard/custody officer experience that is similar in size, scope, and complexity will be evaluated to determine the capability to perform the work under this contract. RFP Sec. M.3(a)(1). The RFP did not define the term "guard"; it did, however, define "custody officer" in the performance work statement (PWS) as follows: Contractor's uniformed unarmed employees responsible for the security, care, and supervision of detainees being detained or under INS proceedings. The officer is also responsible for the safety and security of the facility. RFP Sec. C.1.D. The PWS also stated minimum personnel qualification standards, including that all contract employees shall have a minimum of either 1 year of experience as a law enforcement officer or military policeman, or 6 months experience as a security officer engaged in functions related to detaining civil or administrative detainees. RFP Sec. C.2.2.C.2. The agency received 16 proposals by the June 20 closing date, which were evaluated by a technical evaluation panel (TEP). Following a competitive range determination on July 17 that eliminated Omniplex's "acceptable" proposal from the competitive range, Omniplex protested to our Office. Agency Report, Exh. G, Tab F, First Competitive Range Determination. In response to the protest, the agency took corrective action that included establishing a new TEP and re-evaluating proposals. Agency Report at 5. On August 19, our Office dismissed that protest as academic. On September 10, an entirely new TEP evaluated the proposals. /2/ Prior to this evaluation, the TEP devised scoring criteria under each evaluation factor/subfactor. These criteria were not shared with the offerors. With regard to experience, the TEP stated: Points were allotted to offerors who demonstrated experience in providing custody officers to oversee the detention/custody of detainees. Custody Officers were defined as those having responsibility for the security, care, and supervision of detainees in a custody setting.