Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc., B-293045.2, July 26, 2004

B-293045.2 Jul 26, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc. protests the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) award of a contract to Eagle Technologies, Inc. for security guard services at EPA facilities in North Carolina under request for proposals No. PR-NC-03-10224. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated Ridoc's proposal and improperly conducted discussions with Eagle without conducting discussions with Ridoc. We sustain the protest. View Decision B-293045.2, Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc., July 26, 2004 Decision Matter of: Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc. File: B-293045.2 Date: July 26, 2004 Lawrence J. Sklute, Esq., and Nolan Sklute, Esq., Sklute & Associates, for the protester. Anthony G. Beyer, Esq., and Kenneth A. Redden, Esq., Environmental Protection Agency, for the agency. Linda C. Glass, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest of agency's implementation of voluntary corrective action in response to an earlier protest filed with the Government Accountability Office is sustained where the agency failed to conduct discussions with all of the offerors whose proposals the contracting officer determined to be in the competitive range. DECISION Ridoc Enterprises, Inc./Myers Investigative & Security Services, Inc. protests the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) award of a contract to Eagle Technologies, Inc. for security guard services at EPA facilities in North Carolina under request for proposals (RFP) No. PR-NC-03-10224. The protester contends that the agency misevaluated Ridoc's proposal and improperly conducted discussions with Eagle without conducting discussions with Ridoc. We sustain the protest. The RFP, issued on April 28, 2003, provided for the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year option periods. The solicitation provided for award to the offeror whose proposal was the most advantageous to the government considering price and other factors. The RFP further provided that all of the evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, were significantly more important than price. RFP M.4. Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP. A technical evaluation panel (TEP) reviewed and scored the offerors' technical proposals. Based on the TEP's evaluation, the EPA established a competitive range, which consisted of the proposals of three offerors, including Ridoc and Eagle. The EPA conducted discussions with these three offerors. The EPA subsequently requested and received revised proposals from the three offerors. After the revised proposals were evaluated, the TEP increased Eagle's score from [DELETED] points to [DELETED] points; Ridoc's score decreased from its original score of [DELETED] points to [DELETED] points, and the third offeror's (Offeror A) score increased from [DELETED] points to [DELETED] points. The revised price proposals were as follows: Eagle--[DELETED]; Offeror A--[DELETED]; and Ridoc--[DELETED]. Agency Report (AR), Tab bb, Source Selection Document. The EPA concluded that Ridoc's revised technical proposal was unacceptable. More specifically, the EPA found that Ridoc's revised proposal did not fully address the weaknesses identified during discussions and contained inconsistencies, incomplete information, and statements that reflected a lack of understanding of contract requirements. The contracting officer concluded that only Eagle's proposal should remain in the competitive range. Id. The EPA had further questions concerning Eagle's revised proposal and decided to conduct another round of discussions with Eagle. After these discussions, which addressed both price and technical issues, the EPA requested a second revised proposal from Eagle, as the only offeror whose proposal was in the competitive range. AR, Tab X, Request for Revised Proposal. In its second revised proposal, Eagle addressed a number of technical issues and reduced its price to [DELETED]. Based on its second revised price proposal, Eagle was now the low-priced offeror (as compared to Offeror A and Ridoc, whose prices are set forth above). The EPA subsequently awarded the contract to Eagle on September 26. After an October 1, written debriefing, Ridoc filed a protest with our Office objecting to the award and to the agency's evaluation of proposals. By letter dated November10, the EPA requested that our Office dismiss the protest because the agency had decided to take corrective action. The agency announced that it would reevaluate the revised proposals for the purpose of addressing the inconsistencies in the evaluation identified by the protester.