B-299022; B-299022.2, Wackenhut International, Inc., Wackenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture, January 23, 2007

B-299022; B-299022.2, Wackenhut International, Inc., Wackenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture, January 23, 2007 TITLE: B-299022; B-299022.2, Wackenhut International, Inc., Wackenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture, January 23, 2007 BNUMBER: B-299022; B-299022.2 DATE: January 23, 2007 ******************************************************************************************************************************************* B-299022; B-299022.2, Wackenhut International, Inc., Wackenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture, January 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: Wackenhut International, Inc., Wackenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture File: B-299022; B-299022.2 Date: January 23, 2007 David B. Dempsey, Esq., and David J. Craig, Esq., Holland & Knight LLP, for the protester. Gerald H. Werfel, Esq., Pompan, Murray & Werfel, PLC, for U.S. Defense Systems, LLC, an intervenor. Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency. Paula A. Williams, Esq., and Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency properly rejected protester's proposal as technically unacceptable for failing to comply with solicitation requirements regarding proposed management approach. DECISION Wackenhut International, Inc., Wachenhut Puerto Rico, Inc., Wackenhut Jordan, Ltd.--a Joint Venture (WII), protests the Department of State's rejection of WII's proposal responding to request for proposals (RFP) No. S-JO100-04-R-0001 for local guard services at the United States Embassy in Amman, Jordan. WII protests that the agency improperly rejected WII's proposal as technically unacceptable. We deny the protest. The agency issued the RFP in May 2004, seeking proposals for guard services at the U.S. Embassy in Amman, Jordan. The RFP provided that the services are required in order to "protect life, maintain order, deter criminal attacks against employees, dependents and property and terrorist acts against all U.S. assets."[1] RFP at 14. Pursuant to the solicitation, the successful contractor will be required to provide all necessary personnel, vehicles, and equipment to perform the guard service requirements. The RFP provided that the source selection decision would be made on the basis of the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal, and contemplated award of a time-and-materials contract for a 1-year base period and four 1-year option periods. With regard to technical acceptability, the RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated, on a pass/fail basis, against the following criteria: management plan, experience and past performance, preliminary transition plan, and compensation plan. RFP at 75. With regard to an offeror's proposed management plan, the RFP required, among other things, that: "The management plan will define how the offeror will ensure timely, professional and high quality performance." RFP at 65. Six proposals, including WII's, were submitted by the specified closing date. In its proposal, responding to the solicitation requirement that it propose an acceptable management plan, WII stated that its employees would be expected to routinely work [DELETED] per week. AR exh. 21, WII's Initial Proposal, Vol. 3, at 23. In evaluating WII's proposal, the agency questioned this proposed approach on the basis that such a lengthy workweek was likely to negatively affect the quality of WII's contract performance. Thereafter, in conducting discussions with WII, the agency stated: Your company has failed to address a significant number of areas required by the solicitation and has addressed other areas in a manner that is either unacceptable or unclear. These are the issues that require resolution. Management Plan * * * * * The most critical aspect of a local guard contract is maintaining a highly motivated, happy and alert guard force. In doing this, a contractor could reasonably ensure that he could retain employees. This is achieved by providing a fair workweek and paying a fair salary. To this, your company's statements on page 23 of your proposal in reference to work hours are extremely disconcerting. In our opinion, the statement shows a workweek that is clearly excessive and that will only serve to exhaust and demoralize a guard force. * * * * * We believe a [DELETED] workweek is excessive.