B-298235; B-298235.2, DeTekion Security Systems, Inc., July 31, 2006

B-298235; B-298235.2, DeTekion Security Systems, Inc., July 31, 2006 TITLE: B-298235; B-298235.2, DeTekion Security Systems, Inc., July 31, 2006 BNUMBER: B-298235; B-298235.2 DATE: July 31, 2006 ******************************************************************** B-298235; B-298235.2, DeTekion Security Systems, Inc., July 31, 2006 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: DeTekion Security Systems, Inc. File: B-298235; B-298235.2 Date: July 31, 2006 Michael A. Hordell, Esq., Charles H. Carpenter, Esq., and Sean P. Bamford, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, and Barbara Duncombe, Esq., and Suzanne Sumner, Esq., Sebaly Shillito & Dyer, for the protester. Robert K. Tompkins, Esq., and Michael J. Carrato, Esq., Patton Boggs LLP, for Sigcom-GDI Fencing Solutions, LLC, an intervenor. William D. Robinson, Esq., Federal Bureau of Prisons, for the agency. Edward Goldstein, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that source selection official improperly made award on a low price/technically acceptable basis where solicitation provided for award on a "best value" basis is denied where the record reflects that the source selection official reasonably found the proposals of the awardee and the protester to be substantially equal and selected the lower-priced proposal. 2. Protest challenging source selection official's determination that protester's and awardee's proposals were substantially technically equal is denied where source selection official reasonably determined that the strengths and weaknesses attributed to the proposals by the technical evaluation panel did not reflect a substantial difference between the offerors' technical proposals; the fact that the source selection official's decision did not accept the findings and ratings of agency evaluators is unobjectionable where it is otherwise supported by the record. DECISION DeTekion Security Systems, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Sigcom-GDI Fencing Solutions, LLC under request for proposals (RFP) No. R00-0531, issued by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for the design/build of electrified fence systems at seven BOP correctional facilities. DeTekion argues that the agency's source selection decision was not consistent with the terms of the solicitation, the agency failed to hold meaningful discussions with DeTekion, and the agency's evaluation of Sigcom-GDI's proposal was flawed. We deny the protest. The RFP at issue is the "phase two" process of a two-phase design-build selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 36.3 for the award of a fixed-price contract for the design and installation of "non-lethal/lethal" electrified fencing systems at seven BOP penitentiaries: (1) United States Penitentiary (USP) Coleman I, Florida; (2) USP Coleman II, Florida; (3) USP Pollock, Louisiana; (4) USP Tucson, Arizona; (5) USP Hazelton, West Virginia; (6) USP McCreary, Kentucky; and (7) USP Terre Haute, Indiana. On May 27, 2005, the BOP issued the "phase one" RFP, which provided for an evaluation of offerors' past performance and their responses to technical evaluation factors, which were evaluated by a past performance evaluation panel and technical evaluation panel (TEP), respectively. Phase one did not include an evaluation of price; rather, it was designed solely to determine which offerors were qualified to submit proposals for phase two. Three firms, including DeTekion and SigCom-GDI, submitted phase one proposals and all were deemed qualified for the purpose of advancing to phase two. On September 2, 2005, the BOP sent the phase two RFP, which is at issue in this protest, to the three phase one offerors. The phase two RFP provided for award to the offeror proposing the fence system representing the "best value" to the government, and set forth, in descending order of importance, the following non-price evaluation factors: (1) past performance; (2) preliminary design and proposed technical solutions, and system demonstration; (3) specialized experience and proposed organization; and (4) management and scheduling approach, including quality control and quality assurance and post-construction maintenance and service.