B-296490; B-296490.2, Johnson Controls Security Systems, August 29, 2005

B-296490; B-296490.2, Johnson Controls Security Systems, August 29, 2005 TITLE: B-296490; B-296490.2, Johnson Controls Security Systems, August 29, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296490; B-296490.2 DATE: August 29, 2005 ************************************************************************ B-296490; B-296490.2, Johnson Controls Security Systems, August 29, 2005 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Johnson Controls Security Systems File: B-296490; B-296490.2 Date: August 29, 2005 David R. Johnson, Esq., Kathleen C. Little, Esq., Amy R. Napier, Esq., and Amanda J. Kastello, Esq., Vinson & Elkins, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., Joseph J. Dyer, Esq., and Amanda B. Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, for Quanta Systems Corporation, an intervenor. Diane P. Mullaney, Esq., Department of the Treasury, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest is sustained where awardee misrepresented in its proposal that it had made arrangements before award to obtain training and certification required under the solicitation for its personnel, and the misrepresentation was material in that the agency relied upon it and the record indicates that it had a significant impact upon the evaluation. 2. Protest is sustained where, rather than determining which proposal was most advantageous, as required under the "best value" evaluation scheme, agency essentially considered only whether the proposals were technically acceptable, and failed to reasonably account for the technical superiority of the protester's proposal. DECISION Johnson Controls Security Systems (JCSS) protests the award of a contract by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), to Quanta Systems Corporation, under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-04-0022, for the operation, monitoring and repair of the security systems at BEP's currency production facility in Washington, D.C. JCSS challenges the evaluation of proposals and award selection. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base period of 1 year, with 4 option years, for the operation, monitoring and repair of the security systems at BEP's high security, 2 million square foot Washington Currency Production Facility. The security systems include: (1) the obsolete Access Control and Alarm Monitoring System (ACAMS), a computerized card access control and intrusion detection system manufactured (but no longer supported) by Monitored Dynamics Incorporated (MDI); (2) a closed circuit television (CCTV) system, including a digital video recording system (DVRS) manufactured by Loronix (now owned by Verint Systems), which enables rapid access to archived video; and (3) a video badging system. The solicitation statement of work (SOW) required the contractor to provide sufficient staff to operate and monitor the BEP security systems 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year. All contractor personnel having access to BEP security systems or documentation were required to complete a background investigation and maintain a "High Risk" security clearance. In addition, the SOW imposed various certification requirements--including certifications of training with respect to the MDI ACAMS and Loronix CCTV and DVRS systems--for employees working with the security systems, and provided that the "Contractor has 90 days for proposed employees to be certified from the date of contract award." SOW sections C.1, C.2, C.3; Hearing Transcript (Tr.), Day One (I) at 17-21, 32-33.[1] Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal was determined to represent the "best value" to the government based on a two-phase evaluation process. In Phase I, each offeror was to submit a business management proposal containing its prices and required representations and certifications, and a technical proposal setting forth the offeror's demonstrated corporate experience, experience of proposed staff and past performance. Phase I proposals were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis so as to determine which offerors were to be included in the competitive range. In Phase II, each offeror included in the competitive range was required to make an oral presentation and answer any questions posed by the agency, with "[t]he answers to the questions . . . considered for evaluation purposes" and "[t]he information provided during the oral presentation . . . considered [to be] part of the proposal." RFP sect. L.12.