B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5, Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, March 23, 2007

B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5, Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, March 23, 2007 TITLE: B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5, Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, March 23, 2007 BNUMBER: B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5 DATE: March 23, 2007 ****************************************************************************************** B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5, Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, March 23, 2007 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, LLC File: B-296490.3; B-296490.4; B-296490.5 Date: March 23, 2007 David R. Johnson, Esq., Vinson & Elkins LLP, for the protester. Kevin P. Connelly, Esq., and Amanda B. Weiner, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, for Quanta Systems Corporation, the intervenor. Marvin Kent Gibbs, Esq., Bureau of Engraving and Printing, for the agency. Scott H. Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency improperly failed to consider awardee's past performance as incumbent contractor on solicited requirement is sustained where solicitation called for evaluation of past performance, and agency had actual knowledge of awardee's performance. 2. Agency's finding that awardee's staffing offered advantages as compared to protester's staffing was unreasonable where there is no indication in record that agency considered fact that protester proposed to staff contract [deleted], which would appear to diminish the significance of awardee's identified advantages. DECISION Johnson Controls Security Systems, LLC, (JC) protests the award of a contract to Quanta Systems Corporation under request for proposals (RFP) No. BEP-04-0022, issued by the Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), for the operation, monitoring, and repair of the security systems at BEP's currency production facility in Washington, D.C. JC alleges that the agency misevaluated proposals and made an unreasonable source selection decision. We sustain the protest. The RFP, originally issued in September 2004, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options. The solicitation calls for the contractor to provide sufficient staff to perform the required services 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. All contractor personnel having access to BEP's security systems or documentation are required to complete a background investigation and qualify for, and maintain, a high-risk security clearance, and also are required to obtain certifications to perform security system maintenance, installation and engineering tasks. For evaluation and award purposes, the solicitation contemplated a two-step process. Under phase I, written proposals were to be evaluated on a pass/fail basis using three equally weighted criteria--demonstrated corporate experience, experience of proposed staff, and past performance. Offerors with passing proposals included were in the competitive range and required to make oral presentations for purposes of the phase II evaluation, under which the proposals were evaluated using three additional criteria--management and technical approach, management plan, and transition plan. Overall technical merit was more important than price. The agency made award to Quanta in March 2005. That award decision was protested by JC, first with the agency, and subsequently with our Office. On August 29, 2005, we issued a decision sustaining JC's protest, finding that the agency had relied on a material misrepresentation in Quanta's proposal in making its award decision, and also finding that the award decision had failed to take into account certain "very compelling" advantages associated with JC's proposal arising from the fact that JC had been the incumbent contractor for the requirement. Johnson Controls Sec. Sys., B-296490, B-296490.2, Aug. 29, 2005, 2007 CPD para. __.[1] We recommended that the agency reopen the acquisition and either conduct new oral presentations and obtain revised proposals, or simply obtain revised proposals, evaluate those proposals and make a new source selection decision. Id. at 11-12. (Quanta continued to perform the contract pending implementation of the agency's corrective action.) In response to our recommendation, the agency reissued the solicitation and called for new proposals. Three firms submitted proposals, including JC and Quanta. The agency conducted a new phase I evaluation and determined that all three proposals merited a "pass" rating.