by David Phinney
Sunday June 16th 2019

Insider

Archives

wackenhutt

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/299022.htm
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/296783.htm
Dennis J. Gallagher, Esq., Department of State, for the agency.
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.
that the agency was precluded from considering WII’s prior performance of the guard service requirements at issue here, and that the agency improperly criticized WII’s proposal with regard to compensation issues, Internet training, and guard accommodations. We have considered all of WII’s arguments and find no basis for sustaining its protest.
The agency states that “Embassy Amman faces security issues that are exceeded only by Embassy Kabul and Embassy Baghdad.” Agency Report (AR), Contracting Officer’s Statement, at 3
he agency’s discussion questions to WII also identified other concerns regarding WII’s proposal, including concerns regarding WII’s past performance, as follows:
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.
[W]e believe that your joint venture was the same entity that held the previous contract for these services. Our remaining record regarding your past performance was prepared by the COR [contracting officer’s representative] at that time, after the conclusion of that contract. It lists many failings in terms of performance. These failings included failure to provide basic equipment for the guards, a poorly managed guard force with low morale, a very high turnover rate, poor appearance and attitude of your employees, and lack of interest from senior Wackenhut management in the contract performance. It appears that the problem was perceived to lie with the [DELETED] in the joint venture, more than [DELETED], though [DELETED] was cited as being nonresponsive to the needs of the Embassy.
The solicitation precluded an offeror from proposing that guards would work more than 12 hours per day, but did not expressly limit the number of days per week that guards could be required to work. RFP at 21, 30.
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.

Share

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.