B-296510, Evergreen Fire & Security, August 22, 2005

B-296510 Aug 22, 2005 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Evergreen Fire and Security protests the award of a contract to Shane Gelling Co. (SGC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-05-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army as a total small business set-aside for intrusion detection systems security services at Fort Hood, Texas. Evergreen challenges the agency's technical evaluation of SGC's and Evergreen's proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-296510, Evergreen Fire & Security, August 22, 2005 Decision Matter of: Evergreen Fire & Security File: B-296510 Date: August 22, 2005 S. Christopher Easley, Esq., The Easley Law Group, P.S., for the protester. Dale Shane for Shane Gelling Co., an intervenor. Capt. Joseph Fratarcangeli, Department of the Army, 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 did not require offerors to submit evidence of technicians' qualifications prior to award, whether technicians will meet the requirements is a matter of contract administration and not for review by GAO. 2. Agency's evaluation of awardee's past performance as very good was unobjectionable where it was consistent with awardee's performance record and only negative information identified by protester concerned matters for which, record shows, awardee was not responsible. 3. Evaluation of protester's proposal as marginal was reasonable where proposal failed to identify firm's capability in all systems identified in solicitation. DECISION Evergreen Fire and Security protests the award of a contract to Shane Gelling Co. (SGC) under request for proposals (RFP) No. W91151-05-R-0001, issued by the Department of the Army as a total small business set-aside for intrusion detection systems security services at Fort Hood, Texas. Evergreen challenges the agency's technical evaluation of SGC's and Evergreen's proposals. We deny the protest. The RFP contemplated the award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a period of a base year, with 4 option years. The contractor was to provide necessary personnel, management, equipment, tools, and other items to perform maintenance, repair, services, and systems administration for all Provost Marshal Office security systems at Fort Hood. These systems included intrusion detection systems (IDS); Integrated Commercial Intrusion Detection System-II (ICIDS-II); electronic entry control systems (EECS) radio frequency identification readers and cards (RFID); closed circuit televisions (CCTV) and forward looking infra-red (FLIR) cameras; electronic security fence sensors (ESFS); access control point (ACP) automation including defense biometric identification and radar detection system (DBIDS); and the secure law enforcement network (SLEN). Proposals were to be evaluated on the basis of three factors--quality, past performance, and price. The quality factor was divided into three subfactors--technical capability, management, and quality control. The quality and past performance factors combined were substantially more important than price. Proposals were scored on an adjectival/color basis.[1] Award was to be made on a –best value— basis. Evergreen, SGC, and a third offeror submitted proposals. The results of the consensus evaluation were as follows: Evergreen SGC Offeror 3 Quality Marginal/Yellow Very Good/Purple Marginal/Yellow Past Perf. Very Good/Purple Very Good/Purple Very Good/Purple Price $2,927,129 $3,109,541 $3,077,490 Based on these results, the contracting officer concluded that SGC's proposal represented the best value to the government, and awarded it the contract without conducting discussions. After receiving a debriefing, Evergreen filed this protest challenging the evaluation of the proposals. In reviewing a protest of an agency's proposal evaluation, our review is confined to a determination of whether the agency acted reasonably and consistent with the terms of the solicitation and applicable statutes and regulations. United Def. LP, B'286925.3 et al., Apr. 9, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 75 at 10-11. The evaluation here met this standard. SGC PROPOSAL Personnel Evergreen asserts that the agency improperly failed to downgrade SGC's proposal on the basis that its technicians were not properly certified prior to award. The evaluation in this regard was reasonable. While the –contractor— was required to show evidence that all field technicians working on the IDS/ICIDS-II had the minimum specified MDI SAFEnet[2] certification qualifications and to ensure that all personnel had the proper professional certifications –before starting work— (Performance Work Statement (PWS) sect.