B-400240; B-400240.2, Wackenhut Services, Inc., September 10, 2008
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.
Matter of: Wackenhut Services, Inc.
Richard J. Webber, Esq., Lisa K. Miller, Esq., and Kevin R. Pinkney, Esq., Arent Fox LLP, for the protester.
Anissa
N. Parekh, Esq., and Anthony H. Anikeeff, Esq., Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, for
Coastal International Security, Inc., an intervenor.
Vincent A. Salgado, Esq., and Amber M. Hufft, Esq., National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 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
Protest challenging source selection official’s determination that protester’s and awardee’s proposals were essentially equal, notwithstanding the protester’s greater number of evaluated significant strengths, is denied where the technical evaluation and source selection decision were based upon the reasonable qualitative findings underlying the offerors’ significant strengths as opposed to the mere difference in number of significant strengths.
DECISION
Wackenhut Services, Inc.
protests the award of a contract to Coastal International Security, Inc. under
request for proposals No. NNX077040R, issued by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) for the provision of agency-wide protective
services. Wackenhut challenges NASA’s
technical evaluation and source selection decision.
BACKGROUND
On
As described in the RFP, the underlying “purpose” of the
contemplated agency-wide contract is NASA’s desire “to achieve uniformity,
standardization, and where appropriate, centralization of protective services
across the Agency,” to provide “the ability to seamlessly inter-operate during
Agency related contingencies worldwide, and in the event of emergencies, or
special projects” and to implement “a comprehensive and effective security,
emergency management and fire fighting program for the protection of people,
property, operations, and information associated with the NASA mission.” RFP, at Bates 000065.
The RFP set forth three evaluation factors: mission suitability, past performance and
price. The RFP indicates that the
mission suitability factor is more important than the past performance factor,
and that when these two factors are combined, they are “significantly more
important than the Price factor.” RFP,
at Bates 001483.
The mission suitability factor was comprised of the four
following subfactors, scored according to the following weights: (1) technical approach (425 points);
(2) management approach (375 points); (3) small business participation
approach (100 points); and (4) safety and health approach (100 points). The technical approach and management approach
subfactors were further composed of separately evaluated elements. For technical approach, the first element
(TA1) “Understanding the Requirement,” consists of two parts--responses to
seven hypothetical technical scenarios, and a discussion of the various requirements,
as set forth in the performance work statement (PWS). The second element (TA2) consists of the
offeror’s staffing plan, and the third element (TA3) concerns the offeror’s
proposed innovative techniques to maximize operational efficiencies. RFP, at Bates 01474-75.
The management approach subfactor is comprised of four
elements: (1) management plan (MA1), which has many aspects (e.g.,
offeror’s overall approach to program and contract management, proposed
organizational structure, proposed work breakdown structure (WBS), approach to
identifying, tracking, and resolving customer concerns, the offeror’s total
compensation plan, labor relations plan, records management, etc.); (2)
phase-in plan (MA2); (3) key personnel (MA3); and (4) risk management approach. RFP, at Bates 001475-78.
For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the RFP
instructed offerors to provide information for at least five relevant contracts
and subcontracts that the offeror and/or subcontractor were currently
performing or had completed within the past 3 years. The RFP also directed offerors (and their
significant proposed subcontractors) to provide at least three completed past
performance questionnaires from references in order to establish their record
of past performance. RFP, at Bates
001437.
In evaluating past performance, the RFP provided that
proposals would be adjectivally rated as follows: excellent, very good, good, fair, poor, and
neutral. In defining these ratings, the
RFP indicated that NASA would consider an offeror’s performance and the degree
to which the offeror’s experience was relevant to the procurement. With respect to relevant experience, the RFP
provided for considering whether the offeror demonstrated experience considered
to be “highly relevant,” “very relevant,” “relevant,” “somewhat
relevant,” or not relevant. RFP, at
Bates 001481. Thus, as it relates to the
protest, in order to be rated “excellent,” an offeror’s past performance
references would have to be deemed to be “highly relevant,” and to be rated
“very good,” an offeror’s past performance would have to be deemed “very
relevant.”
With respect to the price factor, offerors were required
to submit a fixed price for each of the 14 NASA locations for the base period
and each option period, as well as a price for “phase-in.” Each offeror’s total proposed price,
including options, would be used for evaluation purposes. RFP sect. M.
NASA received five proposals by the RFP closing time. The agency established a source evaluation
board (SEB) and based upon the findings of the SEB, the source selection
authority (SSA) decided to establish a competitive range for the purpose of
holding discussions limited to Coastal and Wackenhut. Agency Report (AR), Competitive Range
Decision, at Bates 012897. After
receiving Coastal’s and Wackenhut’s responses to discussion questions and
clarifications, and considering oral presentations, the SEB’s final evaluation
findings reflected the following:
Coastal |
Wackenhut |
|||
Adjectival Rating |
Points |
Adjectival Rating |
Points |
|
|
Very
Good |
880 |
Very
Good |
901 |
•
Technical Approach |
•
Excellent |
387 |
•
Excellent |
395 |
•
Management Approach |
•
Very Good |
338 |
•
Excellent |
356 |
•
Small Business |
•
Good |
70 |
•
Good |
51 |
•
Safety and Health |
•
Very Good |
85 |
•
Very Good |
85 |
Past Performance |
Very
Good |
Very
Good |
||
Price |
$1.186
Billion |
$[DELETED] |
AR, SEB Briefing on Final Evaluation to SSA, at Bates
026479.
Overall, for the mission suitability factor, the SEB
evaluated Wackenhut as having nine significant strengths as compared to five
for Coastal. Wackenhut and Coastal were
found to have 20 and 21 “regular strengths” and 7 and 4 “regular weaknesses,”
respectively. Neither offeror’s proposal
was evaluated as having any significant weaknesses. As relevant to the protest, in rating
Wackenhut’s proposal as excellent under the technical approach subfactor, with
395 points, the SEB found that Wackenhut’s proposal included the following four
significant strengths: (1) a detailed
and thorough compliance analysis for their technical approach for each location
task order; (2) “exceptional” responses to the technical scenarios, which
demonstrated a thorough understanding of the response requirements; (3) a
“well-structured, effective, and professional security training program”; and
(4) “an effective plan for staffing in response to unplanned requirements and
emergencies.”
In scoring Wackenhut’s proposal as excellent under the
management approach subfactor, with 356 points, the SEB identified and
documented four additional significant strengths. In this regard, the SEB found that Wackenhut
proposed: (1) a “comprehensive
management approach to program, contract, business and quality management and
customer satisfaction”; (2) an “exceptional methodology to attract, recruit,
and train emergency response staff”; (3) a phase-in-plan, which “exceeds the
Government’s Expectations”; and (4) an “Integrated Risk Management Approach and
Continuous Risk Management Process Across All NASA Centers.”
Regarding the past performance factor, in its proposal,
Wackenhut provided information on six government contracts where Wackenhut
performs as a prime or subcontractor.
Two of the six contracts were fixed-price, while the others were
cost-reimbursement type contracts. In
addition, four of the contracts are for protective security services at NASA
facilities that are included under this procurement (two of these contracts
also included fire protection services).
Coastal provided information on four fixed-price government contracts
where it performs as a prime contractor.
One contract involves providing protective security services at two NASA
facilities that are included under this procurement (at one location Coastal
also provides information assurance services and at the other Coastal provides
a “fire brigade”). Coastal further
provided past performance information for two of its major subcontractors,
Intergraph Corp. (proposed to provide information technology integration and
information assurance services) and Sallyport Support Services (proposed to
provide fire and emergency services).
Based upon its consideration of information contained in
the offerors’ proposals, past performance questionnaires, and information
contained in the government’s past performance database (the past performance
information retrieval system (PPIRS)), the SEB identified six strengths and no
weaknesses for Wackenhut, and four strengths and one weakness for Coastal. As it relates to the protest, both Wackenhut
and Coastal received strengths for their “relevant” experience. The one weakness attributed to Coastal’s past
performance concerned its subcontractor, Intergraph. Specifically, NASA found two “poor”
performance ratings in the PPIRS database for Integraph. NASA noted that they concerned “software
development and delivery” and were due to Intergraph’s failure to meet “minimum
acceptable standards,” which negatively affected its “overall
performance.” NASA stated, “[w]hile
software development and delivery is not presently a[] requirement, the
Government is concerned with overall project management allowing this to
occur.” AR, Competitive Range Briefing
to SSA, at Bates 012668. The PPIRS
database also reflected “good” ratings for Intergraph on two separate
contracts, and the four past performance questionnaires received for Intergraph
reflected ratings of “meets” or “exceeds” expectations. AR, Past Performance Information, at Bates
011492-533.
After completing its evaluation, the SEB presented its
findings to the SSA. In his selection
statement, the SSA indicated that his decision was “based on a comparative
assessment of each proposal against each of the source selection factors.” AR, SSA Selection Decision, at Bates
026642. In this regard, the SSA
highlighted each of the significant strengths for both offerors. With regard to Coastal, the SSA wrote that he
was “particularly impressed with Coastal’s continuous improvement plan which is
applicable and adaptable to all facets of the contract, helping NASA achieve
its goal of innovation, standardization, and efficiency over the life of the
contract.”
Assessing the importance of the strengths Offerors received was more revealing to me than the number of strengths each offeror received. I recognized Coastal had customized its proposal to achieve the goals of the [NASA protective services contract] with a continuous improvement plan and its intended web portal. Based upon the value of this customization, I found the Mission Suitability proposal from Coastal was basically equal to the Mission Suitability proposal submitted by Wackenhut.
Given that the SSA considered the proposals submitted by
Wackenhut and Coastal to be “essentially equal” with respect to the mission
suitability and past performance factors, and considering Coastal’s lower
price, the SSA determined that Coastal offered the best value to the
government.
Wackenhut contends that the SEB’s findings with respect to
the technical approach and management approach subfactors, as well as the past
performance factor, are flawed, and that the SSA failed to make a proper
price/technical tradeoff. Regarding the
SEB’s findings, Wackenhut argues it was unreasonable for the SEB to have rated
Wackenhut and Coastal as closely as it did given that Wackenhut had a clear advantage
in terms of the number of significant strengths in the proposals and that the
SEB’s evaluation results are not properly documented to the extent there is no
discussion in the record of how the SEB moved from its findings of strengths
and weaknesses to assigning adjectival ratings and numerical scores. Wackenhut also challenges the underlying
findings of the SEB, asserting that the record reflects unequal treatment since
it offered a web portal equivalent to the one offered by Coastal, yet the SEB
did not evaluate Wackenhut’s web portal as a “significant strength” in its
proposal. Wackenhurt further contends
that four of the six weaknesses attributed to its proposal were unfounded and
that its discussions were inadequate because the agency failed to raise two
weaknesses identified in its proposal.
In reviewing protests of an agency’s evaluation, our
Office does not reevaluate proposals, but instead examines the record to
determine whether the agency acted reasonably and in accord with the
solicitation’s evaluation criteria and applicable procurement statutes and
regulations. Cherry Road Techs.;
Elec. Data Sys. Corp., B‑296915 et al.,
As an initial matter, we find the protester’s criticisms
of the SEB’s assignment of adjectival ratings and point scores and its
corresponding documentation of this process misplaced. In Wackenhut’s view, the number of strengths
and weaknesses found for each offeror “has to be the most important basis for
an adjectival rating and score,” Protester’s Comments at 16, and, given that
the “significant strengths” were the chief discriminator between the proposals,
“if [Wackenhut’s] having twice as many significant strengths as Coastal is not
a meaningful difference, then nothing in the SEB’s process can be.”
In a hearing conducted by our Office, during which we
heard testimony from the SSA and the SEB Chairperson, the SEB Chairperson
described the evaluation process and explained that each proposal was evaluated
independently against the criteria set forth in the RFP, with the SEB reaching
consensus on its findings (the various strengths and weaknesses identified for
each proposal). Based upon these
findings, the SEB assigned, on a consensus basis, adjectival ratings, and then
point scores. In assigning ratings and
scores, the SEB Chairperson explained that, with respect to significant
strengths, it was the content of the offerors’ proposals, as reflected in the
specific findings, which was used to rate and score offerors. The SEB Chairperson stated that the process
of assigning ratings and scores was not merely a “numbers game” driven by the
mere number of significant strengths identified in an offeror’s proposal. Hearing Transcript (Hr. Tr.) at 82.
We find the agency’s evaluation process
unobjectionable. At the core, Wackenhut
seeks a mathematical or mechanical consideration of the number of
significant strengths in determining the evaluation ratings and attributing
points to the offerors’ proposals.
Adjectival ratings and point scores, however, are mere tools in the
evaluation and selection process and should not be mechanically derived or
applied. Rather, it is the agency’s
qualitative findings in connection with its evaluation of proposals--in this
case the documented written narratives underlying and justifying the SEB’s
findings of particular significant strengths--that govern the reasonableness of
an agency’s assessment of offerors’ proposals.
MCR Federal, Inc., B-280969,
Here, the offerors’ proposals were evaluated independently
against the RFP’s evaluation criteria and the evaluation ratings and scores
simply served as an expression of the agency’s exercise of its discretion in
making its qualitative findings. As a
consequence, there is nothing per se improper with Coastal and
Wackenhut receiving similar ratings and scores under the mission suitability
factor, and related subfactors, notwithstanding the fact that Wackenhut’s
proposal had more significant strengths as compared to the proposal submitted
by Coastal. All Star Maintenance,
Inc., B-271119, June 17, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 278 at 4 (holding that agency’s
evaluation of two offers as essentially equal was not unreasonable
notwithstanding the fact that the protester had five strengths while the
awardee had only two strengths). Absent
some basis for concluding that the technical findings underlying the ratings
and scores were flawed, there is no basis for our Office to conclude that the
SEB’s ratings were unreasonable.
Moreover, with respect to the documentation issue, the relevant material
is NASA’s underlying technical findings, which have been amply documented by
the SEB, and it is those findings which are reflected in the SEB’s qualitative
findings and which formed the basis of the adjectival ratings and point
scores.
The principal area where Wackenhut argues that the SEB’s
findings were flawed with respect to the significant strengths concerns
Coastal’s web portal.[1] Specifically, Wackenhut argues that it was
unreasonable for the SEB to recognize Coastal’s web portal, but not its own, as
a significant strength since, in Wackenhut’s view, both will perform the same
functions, and will have the same features.
Protester’s Comments at 31. In
support of this argument, Wackenhut highlights several areas where it contends
the offerors’ proposed web portals are essentially the same. These include, among others, the fact that
they are both based on the same software platform, Microsoft Sharepoint, which
has built-in features that are the same for all users [DELETED]. Second Declaration of Protester’s Consultant,
Thomas W. Bragg,
While the web portals may have been the same or similar in
several respects, they were different in one fundamental way. Specifically, Coastal’s web portal was
effectively a finished product, while Wackenhut’s web portal remained
conceptual in nature--to be developed if Wackenhut was awarded the
contract. NASA explains that during oral
presentations, Coastal, unlike Wackenhut, demonstrated a live, [DELETED] web
portal system [DELETED]. As the SSA
testified, Coastal’s web portal was “actually up and running” [DELETED]. Hr. Tr. at 42, 61. The Chairperson for the SEB testified that
Wackenhut’s web portal was not live at the demonstration--“there was nothing
populated in it, there was nothing that it could do. I believe Wackenhut told us that they could
develop it, if they won the contract, when the contract started.” Hr. Tr. at 138-39. Coastal on the other hand, demonstrated [DELETED]
how they would use that tool [DELETED].
Hr. Tr. at 159.
The fact that Coastal’s web portal was operational during
the oral presentations clearly was significant to NASA, since it allowed the
SEB to fully appreciate the usefulness of Coastal’s web portal in performing
the contract and understand how it would assist NASA with its fundamental goal
of integrating the provision of protective services agency-wide under one
contract. In this regard, the specific
SEB’s findings underlying the significant strength for Coastal’s web portal are well-documented in the record and have not been challenged
by Wackenhut. Based upon this
demonstrated and functioning system, the SSA reasonably concluded that
Coastal’s web portal [DELETED]. SSA
Selection Decision, at Bates 026642-43.
Given that the web portals proposed by Wackenhut and Coastal were
materially different in this respect, there is no basis for our Office to
conclude that NASA treated offerors inconsistently in its evaluation of their
respective systems. ITT Indus. Space
Sys., LLC, B-309964, B-309964.2,
Recognizing the fact that its own web portal was at a fundamentally different stage of development as compared to the web portal demonstrated by Coastal, Wackenhut attempts to turn this difference to its advantage, arguing that NASA should have considered the relative lack of development of its system to have been a benefit as compared to the system proposed by Coastal. Because its web portal has not been developed, Wackenhut contends that it is actually in a position to develop a better system since it would be able to work with and receive input from NASA. While Wackenhut may believe that its approach of offering an undeveloped, untested, essentially theoretical web portal system is a better option for NASA than the demonstrated functional system offered by Coastal, Wackenhut’s belief does not provide a basis for concluding that the agency’s findings were unreasonable.
Wackenhut also challenges the SEB’s evaluation of the
offerors’ past performance, arguing that it should have been rated higher than
Coastal under this factor. In this
regard, Wackenhut contends that in evaluating offerors’ past performance
information, the SEB failed to consider the degree of relevance of offerors’
information, pointing to the fact that while the subcontractor Coastal proposed
for the fire protection function called for under the RFP, Sallyport, lacked
experience in that area, Wackenhut has performed the same type of work at
several of the same NASA facilities consolidated under the RFP. Wackenhut also argues that Coastal should not
have received a rating of “very good” given the poor past performance ratings
for another proposed subcontractor, Intergraph, and because one of Sallyport’s
past performance references indicated that the contract was terminated for the
convenience of the government.
The evaluation of an offeror’s past performance, including
the agency’s determination of the relevance and scope of an offeror’s
performance history, is a matter of agency discretion that we will not find
improper unless unreasonable, inconsistent with the solicitation criteria,
undocumented, or inconsistent with applicable statutes or regulations. Family Entm’t Servs., Inc., d/b/a/ IMC,
B-291997.4,
Here, the record shows that the SEB’s past performance
evaluation was consistent with the solicitation and reasonable. As an initial matter, we reject Wackenhut’s
assertion that it was unreasonable for Coastal to have received a “very good”
rating given the poor past performance ratings for Intergraph. While the record does reflect that Intergraph
did in fact receive “poor” ratings, NASA specifically considered this
information in its evaluation of Coastal’s past performance and found it to be
of minimal relevance since it concerned work that was not required under the
solicitation, and further concluded that the ratings were tempered by
Intergraph’s other positive past performance information. Given the agency’s consideration of this
matter, we have no basis to conclude that the agency’s evaluation was
unreasonable in this respect.
We also conclude that NASA did not act unreasonably in
rating Coastal’s past performance as “very good” notwithstanding Coastal’s
disclosure that one of its other major subcontractors, Sallyport, had a
contract terminated for the convenience of the government. In addressing this issue in its proposal,
Coastal provided a copy of the letter from the relevant agency indicating that
the termination was the result of agency corrective action in response to a
protest, where the agency concluded that the solicitation process was
compromised due to an ambiguity in the solicitation. Coastal’s Proposal, at Bates 003022. Given the circumstances underlying the
termination, there is no basis to conclude that the termination was in any way
relevant to the evaluation of Sallyport’s past performance, and in fact was not
performance related, and Wackenhut has not offered any evidence to suggest
otherwise. See Si-Nor, Inc., B-292748.2 et al.,
Regarding the relevance of the offerors’ past performance
information, the record reflects that the SEB did in fact consider the degree
of relevance of the offerors’ past performance information as part of its evaluation. Specifically, offerors provided detailed
information concerning their past performance (identifying dollar values of
contracts and how the work was relevant to the solicitation requirements) and
the past performance questionnaires for the offerors and their major
subcontractors required references to rate the relevance of the contractor’s
performance (either “significant experience,” “moderate experience” or
“minimal/did not perform”). AR, Past
Performance Information.
The SEB Chairperson testified that Coastal’s “very good”
rating under the past performance factor was based upon the fact that its past
performance information demonstrated that Coastal had “very relevant
experience” with the RFP requirements, which was a precondition for a “very good”
rating, expressly noting, among other things, its experience providing
protective services at NASA facilities and its extensive experience with
fixed-price security contracts. Hr. Tr.
at 86-87. This finding is consistent
with the underlying record, which demonstrates Coastal’s experience as a prime
contractor with several large fixed-price security contracts, including a
security contract involving NASA facilities valued at approximately $30
million, Department of Homeland Security contracts for security services at
various large federal facilities with a total value over $110 million, and
security contracts for 13 Department of the Army installations with a total
value of over $106 million.
While Wackenhut contends that its past performance information
reflects substantially greater relevant experience, the record shows that its
contracts are largely comparable in size to those performed by Coastal (NASA
contracts ranging in value from $6.1 million to $52.6 million, and a NASA
contract where it performs relevant security guard services and fire protection
services as a minority partner under a larger ($2.2 billion) joint venture
contract for mission support services, as well as a $280 million Department of
Energy protective services contract). Of
the six contracts performed by Wackenhut, only two are fixed-price; the others
are cost- reimbursement contracts. To
the extent Wackenhut had experience performing at four NASA facilities which
are included under the RFP here, Coastal also has experience at two NASA
facilities which likewise are included under the RFP. Thus, both offerors demonstrated experience
providing protective services to NASA.
Moreover, to the extent Wackenhut highlights its experience performing
integrated services--i.e., several functions under a single contract,
such as security, fire protection, and emergency medical services)--the record
reflects that Coastal also has experience providing integrated services under
its NASA facilities contract in the areas of security, fire protection, and
information assurance.[2]
In addition, we find Wackenhut’s assertions regarding
Coastal’s lack of experience with the fire protection requirement to be
unfounded. The past performance
information regarding Sallyport, Coastal’s subcontractor proposed to address
the fire fighting function, reflects Sallyport’s “significant experience” with
fire operations, firefighting, fire prevention and fire engineering, in
connection with a $37 million subcontract in Iraq, as well as a $4.41 million
prime contract with the Department of Defense in Iraq. AR, Past Performance Information, at Bates
011447, 011534-63. Based upon this
record, we have no basis to conclude that the agency acted unreasonably in
ascribing the same “very good” past performance rating to Coastal and
Wackenhut.[3]
Wackenhut also challenges the SSA’s award decision,
arguing that it was based upon an unreasonable and unsupported reevaluation of
the SEB’s findings, and that the SSA’s award decision was not adequately
documented. As a general matter, where
price is secondary to technical considerations under a solicitation’s
evaluation scheme, the selection of a lower-priced proposal over a proposal
with a higher technical rating requires an adequate justification, i.e.,
one showing the agency reasonably concluded that notwithstanding the point or
adjectival differential between the two proposals, they were essentially equal
in technical merit, or that the differential in the evaluation ratings between
the proposals was not worth the cost premium associated with selection of the
higher technically rated proposal. In
making these determinations, the propriety of a price/technical tradeoff turns
not on the difference in technical scores per se, but on whether
the contracting agency’s judgment concerning the significance of that
difference was reasonable in light of the solicitation’s evaluation
scheme. In this regard, adjectival
ratings and point scores are but guides to, and not substitutes for, intelligent
decision making. SAMS El Segundo, LLC,
B-291620, B-291620.2,
Here, the record reflects that, contrary to Wackenhut’s
assertions, the SSA in fact accepted all of the findings of the SEB and engaged
in a comparative assessment of Wackenhut’s and Coastal’s proposals, considering
the point scores of the offerors, their adjectival ratings, and the specific
significant strengths attributed to the proposals by the SEB, and thereby
considered the underlying qualitative merits that distinguished Wackenhut’s and
Coastal’s proposals. Based on this
assessment, the SSA concluded that Wackenhut’s and Coastal’s proposals were
“essentially equal” for mission suitability and past performance. While Wackenhut argues that its greater
number of significant strengths should have been the dispositive discriminator,
rendering the SSA’s finding of equivalence unreasonable, as noted above, what
is important is not the number of significant strengths, but rather the
qualitative findings underlying these significant strengths. In this regard, the SSA’s determination that
the proposals were essentially equal qualitatively was entirely consistent with
the SEB’s evaluation results, which, notwithstanding Wackenhut’s greater number
of significant strengths, reflected only a slim advantage.[4] Moreover, Wackenhut’s argument that the SSA
failed to properly consider its own web portal and continuous improvement plan
(the two primary significant strengths of Coastal’s proposal) is misplaced
since the SEB did not in fact identify these aspects of Wackenhut’s proposal as
offering significant strengths.[5] Thus, consistent with the RFP, the SSA
reasonably concluded that price became the determining factor for award and
decided that payment of a premium of [DELETED] percent (approximately [DELETED])
for Wackenhut’s proposal was not justified.
Under these circumstances, we see no basis to question the agency’s
decision to make award to Coastal.
As a final matter, Wackenhut contends that four of the six
weaknesses identified in its proposal under the technical approach and management
approach subfactors were unreasonable, and that a fifth should have been raised
during discussions. Based upon the
nature of the weaknesses, which concerned very specific and minor staffing
issues at individual NASA sites (the weaknesses were only presented to the SSA
through backup briefing slides), the fact that Wackenhut received the highest
adjectival rating of “excellent” under both of these subfactors, and most
importantly, our review of the SSA’s selection decision, it is apparent that they
were not material to the selection of Coastal’s proposal for award. Rather, in terms of the mission suitability
factor, the SSA focused exclusively on the evaluated significant strengths of
the offerors’ proposals in concluding that they were “essentially equal” for
mission suitability. Therefore, even
accepting Wackenhut’s arguments that the weaknesses lacked a reasonable basis,
or were the result of inadequate discussions, the record does not establish
that Wackenhut was prejudiced by the agency’s evaluation in this regard. L-3 Comms. Corp., B-299014, B‑299014.2,
The protest is denied.
Gary L. Kepplinger
General Counsel
[1] Wackenhut also argued that the SEB’s evaluation was unreasonable to the extent it gave Coastal, but not Wackenhut, a significant strength for their equivalent continuous improvement plans. The agency addressed this issue in its report, yet Wackenhut did not pursue this line of argument in its comments. We therefore consider Wackenhut to have abandoned this issue. Citrus College; KEI Pearson, Inc., B-293543 et al., Apr. 9, 2004, 2004 CPD para. 104 at 8 n.4.
[2]
Past performance information concerning Coastal’s NASA contract indicates that Coastal
had “significant” experience providing security and information assurance
services, and “moderate” experience with fire operations, firefighting, fire
prevention and fire engineering. AR,
Past Performance Information, at Bates 011445.
In addition, past performance information concerning Coastal’s
Department of Homeland Security contracts indicates that Coastal had
“significant” experience providing security services and “moderate” experience
providing “emergency operations” services.
[3] Coastal also provided information regarding eight contracts awarded to and performed by Coastal’s parent company, Akal Security, Inc. Wackenhut argues that Coastal’s past performance should have been downgraded based upon past performance issues with its parent company. Wackenhut also argues that it was improper for Coastal to receive credit for Akal’s past performance given the limited role proposed for Akal in performance of the contract. Wackenhut’s arguments are clearly at odds with one another. In any event, the record reflects that NASA did not consider Akal’s past performance information in its evaluation of Coastal given Akal’s limited role in performance of the contract and we have no basis to conclude that the agency’s decision in this regard was unreasonable.
[4] As noted in the chart above, Wackenhut received a higher adjectival rating in only one of the four technical subfactors (“excellent” v. Coastal’s “very good” rating in management approach); the adjectival ratings were the same for both offerors in the other three subfactors. With regard to point scores, Wackenhut had slightly higher scores in two of the subfactors; Coastal had a higher score in the third subfactor; and the offerors had the same scores in the fourth subfactor. Overall, both proposals received a rating of “very good,” with a relatively small difference in the total point scores (out of 1,000 available points, 880 for Coastal and 901 for Wackenhut).
[5] During the hearing at our Office, the SSA testified that Wackenhut’s continuous improvement plan was limited to the phase-in period of the contract. Hr. Tr. at 44-45. This was factually incorrect. We conclude, however, that this error was not material and most likely resulted from the SSA’s faulty memory regarding the content of Wackenhut’s proposal. In this regard, we note that there is nothing in the record to suggest that NASA considered Wackenhut’s continuous improvement plan to be limited to phase‑in. Moreover, this erroneous notion was not part of the SSA’s final selection statement.