[Protest of State Contract Award for Uniformed Armed and Unarmed Guard Services]

Two firms protested a Department of State contract award for uniformed armed and unarmed guard services, contending that: (1) State improperly evaluated the awardee's technical proposal; (2) the awardee's proposal should have been rejected as mathematically unbalanced; and (3) State failed to adequately analyze the awardee's low bid price. GAO held that: (1) the evaluation of the awardee's bid was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; (2) the awardee's bid was not mathematically unbalanced, since it reflected the government's anticipated requirements and would result in the lowest overall cost to the government; (3) State did not evaluate the realism of the awardee's price, since the contract placed upon the contractor the risk and responsibility for loss; and (4) State's analysis of the awardee's bid price was reasonable, since it compared the awardee's price with the other bid prices received and performed a crosswalk analysis to ensure that the awardee's proposed methodology for meeting certain technical requirements was supported by its proposed price. Accordingly, the protests were denied.