Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., B-295352; B-295352.2, February 8, 2005

Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., B-295352; B-295352.2, February 8, 2005 TITLE: Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., B-295352; B-295352.2, February 8, 2005 BNUMBER: B-295352; B-295352.2 DATE: February 8, 2005 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. File: B-295352; B-295352.2 Date: February 8, 2005 David F. Innis, Esq., and Neil H. O'Donnell, Esq., Rogers Joseph O'Donnell & Phillips, for the protester. David B. Dempsey, Esq., Caitlin K. Cloonan, Esq., and Kristen E. Ittig, Esq., Holland & Knight, for Wackenhut International, Inc., an intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Paul E. Jordan, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Where solicitation for local guard services provided for 10-percent price evaluation preference for offerors qualifying as "U.S. persons," fact that awardee has a foreign parent did not preclude awardee from receiving the preference, since nothing in the solicitation or underlying statute required offerors to establish ownership and control by U.S. citizens to qualify for the preference. 2. Awardee's proposal was not entitled to application of "U.S. person" evaluation preference, and protest is sustained, where solicitation provided that offerors would qualify for preference if required certification showed offeror had achieved a specified business volume, and awardee's certification, which consisted solely of consolidated (i.e., corporate parent and subsidiary) financial information, failed to show that awardee had adequate business volume; agency's knowledge of awardee's other contracts was insufficient to establish that awardee met the requirement, since a majority of those contracts were performed by awardee as a joint venturer, and there was no breakdown information showing amount of business volume attributable to awardee. DECISION Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Wackenhut International, Inc. (WII) under solicitation No. S-IV100-2002-Q-0567, issued by the Department of State for guard services in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. Inter-Con asserts that WII's offer was improperly given a 10-percent price preference, which put WII in line for the award. We sustain the protest. The solicitation sought proposals for providing local guard services at the U.S. Embassy in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. Award was to be made to the offeror with the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, for a base year, with 4 option years. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of several technical factors and price, including application of a 10-percent price evaluation preference for offerors meeting the qualifications of a "U.S. person." Application of the preference was primarily based on information provided by each offeror in a qualification statement/certification required by section K.11 of the solicitation, which provided that an offeror's status as a U.S. person was to be based on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990-1991, P.L.A 101-246 (22A U.S.C. SA 4864A (2000)). Inter-Con, WII, and a third offeror submitted proposals, which were evaluated by the agency. Subsequently, WII's corporate parent, Group 4 Falck, a Danish firm, merged with Securicor, a United Kingdom firm. Based on its evaluation of the offerors' revised proposals, including revised qualification statements, the agency determined that the third firm's proposal was technically unacceptable, but that Inter-Con's and WII's proposals were acceptable. The agency also found that both technically acceptable firms qualified as U.S. persons eligible for the price preference. With application of the price preference to both proposals, WII's price of $11,997,256 was lower than Intera**Con's, and the agency thus made award to WII. After a debriefing, Inter-Con filed this protest. Inter-Con asserts that WII does not meet the definition of a U.S. person because it is owned by a foreign corporation, Securicor, and because it failed to provide adequate information in its section K.11 qualification statement to establish its status as a U.S. person. If WII does not qualify as a U.S. person for purposes of the preference, then Inter-Con, which does qualify, will be in line for the award. This argument is without merit. Under the statute (and solicitation section K.11), a firm qualifies as a U.S.