[Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Protest Against GSA Contract Award]

B-218565.2: Aug 6, 1985

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

A firm requested reconsideration of a decision denying its protest of a General Services Administration (GSA) contract award. GAO held that, although the solicitation did not specifically state the agency's desire for Guard II services, the protester's bid, based on a lower wage determination for Guard I services, was properly rejected because the solicitation's description of duties and qualifications clearly indicated that Guard II personnel were required. The protester contended that: (1) the decision was in error because it allegedly failed to address the contention that the contracting officer exceeded his authority by determining that the contract required Guard II services; (2) the decision failed to recognize that Guard I personnel would meet the solicitation's requirements; and (3) the contracting officer sidestepped the issue of whether the awardee's bid was also based on the Guard I wage rate. GAO found that: (1) the contracting officer did not exceed his authority; (2) the Department of Labor established the definitions of Guard I and Guard II personnel and wage rates, not GSA; (3) GSA merely applied the appropriate Labor wage rate to the description of services it asked for in its solicitation; (4) the solicitation clearly required Guard II personnel; and (5) the awardee's bid was responsive because GSA was satisfied that it, unlike the protester's bid, was based on the wage rate for Guard II personnel. GAO will not review a bidder's ability to perform at its bid price except in limited circumstances that were not present here. Accordingly, the initial decision was affirmed.