Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-293344.2, March 19, 2004

B-293344.2 Mar 19, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Was unreasonable where record does not establish a reasonable possibility that any offeror was prejudiced by the defect. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis. The three technical factors combined were significantly more important than price. Which were evaluated by the source selection team. Leaving offerors to assume that all three were of equal weight. SCG asserts that the agency's corrective action was unwarranted because none of the offerors was prejudiced by the defect identified by the agency. That it will be at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the reopened competition because its contract price has been disclosed. The agency responds that the failure to disclose the relative weights of the technical factors was a material solicitation deficiency that had to be remedied by reopening the competition. View Decision Security Consultants Group, Inc., B-293344.2, March 19, 2004 * REDACTED DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Security Consultants Group, Inc. (SCG) protests the action of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in canceling a task order awarded to SCG under request for proposals (RFP) No. GS-07P-03-FCD-0131, issued by the General Services Administration for security guard services in Texas and Oklahoma. SCG asserts that the agency erred in reopening the competition to correct a solicitation defect. We sustain the protest. The RFP sought proposals to furnish security guard services for DHS's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at various installations in Texas and Oklahoma. The solicitation contemplated the issuance of a fixed-price task order under the successful vendor's Federal Supply Schedule contract for a base period, with 4 option years. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis, with proposals evaluated under four factors--supervision/key personnel, training plan, past performance, and price. The three technical factors combined were significantly more important than price. [Deleted] offerors, including SCG, CIS, and Southwestern Security Services, Inc. (SSSI), submitted proposals, which were evaluated by the source selection team. Based on SCG's technical proposal score and its price, the contracting officer concluded that SCG's proposal represented the best value to the government, and awarded it the task order. SSSI protested to our Office, challenging the evaluation of its proposal and the award decision; we ultimately dismissed the protest (along with similar protests against other awards) for failure to state a valid basis of protest (B-293295.2, B-293344, B-293345, B-293346, Dec. 2, 2003). In reviewing the contract record, the agency realized that the RFP had not disclosed the relative weights of the three technical factors, leaving offerors to assume that all three were of equal weight. Agency Report at 3; see Maryland Off. Relocators, B-291092, Nov. 12, 2002, 2002 CPD Para. 198 at 5. Specifically, the evaluation plan--and the actual evaluation--had assigned past performance a weight of 60 percent, and weights of 20 percent each to the supervision/key personnel and training factors. Accordingly, although the SSSI protest had been dismissed, the agency decided to take corrective action by amending the RFP to set forth the factors' relative weights and providing the offerors an opportunity to revise their technical and price proposals. After receiving notice of the agency's corrective action, SCG filed this protest. The agency subsequently modified the task order, effectively terminating SCG's contract for this work. SCG asserts that the agency's corrective action was unwarranted because none of the offerors was prejudiced by the defect identified by the agency, and that it will be at an unfair competitive disadvantage in the reopened competition because its contract price has been disclosed. The agency responds that the failure to disclose the relative weights of the technical factors was a material solicitation deficiency that had to be remedied by reopening the competition, because it could have affected the way offerors prepared their proposals, and thus could have affected the award determination. Contracting agencies have broad discretion to take corrective action where they determine that such action is necessary to ensure fair and impartial competition. RS Info. Sys., Inc., B-287185.2, B-287185.3, May 16, 2001, 2001 CPD Para. 98 at 4. Where the corrective action taken by an agency is otherwise unobjectionable, a request for revised price proposals is not improper merely because the awardee's price has been exposed. Strand Hunt Constr., Inc., B-292415, Sept. 9, 2003, 2003 CPD Para. 167 at 6.