GAO Report from B-294359

B-294359 Nov 01, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights American Guard Services, Inc. (AGS) protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) by the Department of Homeland Security to Securitas Security Guard Services, Inc., under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. HS-FPS-04-XPC-0014 for guard services in federal buildings in Alaska. AGS challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's past performance. We deny the protest. View Decision B-294359, American Guard Services, Inc., November 1, 2004 Decision Matter of: American Guard Services, Inc. File: B-294359 Date: November 1, 2004 Sherif Assal for the protester. G. Thomas Carter, Esq., Department of Homeland Security, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and Guy R. Pietrovito, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest complaining that the protester's past performance should have received higher than an acceptable rating and that the awardee's acceptable past performance rating was unreasonable is denied where the solicitation only provided for a pass/fail evaluation of past performance and the record supports the agency's judgment that both firms had acceptable past performance. DECISION American Guard Services, Inc. (AGS) protests the award of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA) by the Department of Homeland Security to Securitas Security Guard Services, Inc., under that firm's Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract, pursuant to request for quotations (RFQ) No. HS-FPS-04-XPC-0014 for guard services in federal buildings in Alaska. AGS challenges the evaluation of its and the awardee's past performance. We deny the protest. The RFQ, issued on April 20, 2004, provided for the award of a BPA for a two-month base period and four option years. A detailed statement of work was provided that described the services to be provided, and the solicitation identified estimated total labor hours for regular armed guard services and supervisory services. Vendors were required to provide fixed-hourly-labor rates based upon these estimates. [1] The solicitation provided for the evaluation of quotations under two evaluation factors, price and past performance, and stated that evaluation of past performance would be a "subjective assessment," in which each firm's past performance would receive either a "pass" or "fail" rating. RFQ at 114. Award was to be made to the vendor submitting the overall lowest priced quote, which had an acceptable past performance evaluation. The agency received eight quotations, including the quotes of Securitas and AGS. The quotations of all eight offerors received "pass" ratings under the past performance evaluation. Securitas submitted the lowest overall priced quotation, and the agency made award to that firm. AGS, which submitted the second lowest priced quote, filed this protest. The protester objects to the "pass" past performance rating that its quotation received. The protester states that it received a contract for this requirement, when it was previously competed as a small business set-aside. [2] The protester argues that its incumbent performance, which it states was rated very highly, should have warranted a higher past performance rating than that received by Securitas. [3] This protest objection provides us with no basis to question the agency's evaluation of AGS's past performance. An agency may not announce in the solicitation that they will use one evaluation plan and then follow another; once offerors are informed of the criteria against which their proposals will be evaluated and the source selection decision made, the agency must adhere to those criteria or inform all offerors of significant changes. See DynCorp , B-245289, B-245289.2, Dec. 23, 1991, 91-2 CPD 575 at 5. Here, AGS's quotation received the highest possible rating under the solicitation's stated evaluation scheme, which provided that past performance would only be rated on a pass/fail basis. AGS also complains that the agency's "pass" rating of Securitas's past performance was unreasonable. In this regard, the protester notes that one of the awardee's referenced contracts was relatively new (Securitas has been performing approximately four months) and that for another contract the responding reference indicated that Securitas had billing problems and questioned the quality of that firm's staff, on that contract. AGS also alleges that Securitas had performance problems on a contract to provide security services at the United States Priority Mail Processing center in Kearny, New Jersey. Where an agency's evaluation is challenged, our Office will not reevaluate quotations but instead will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the stated criteria. Simms Indus., Inc. , B-252827.2, Oct. 4, 1993, 93-2 CPD 206 at 2.