Request for Reconsideration

A firm protested the General Services Administration's (GSA) award of a contract for security guard services. GAO had previously dismissed the protest as untimely filed. However, subsequent to the issuance of that decision, the protester requested reconsideration and submitted a receipt from the courier service as evidence that its protest had been timely filed. Therefore, GAO considered the protest on its merits. The protester asserted that the solicitation was structured unfairly in favor of the incumbent contractor and that it was advertised for a shorter period of time than is required by regulations. In addition, the protester claimed that GSA did not indicate how much time the contractor would have to prepare for performance even though security clearances had to be obtained. The solicitation requested bids from those firms interested in supplying security guard services for 1 year at 10 federally owned and leased buildings and specified that the successful bidder should have a top secret facility clearance and that each of its employees assigned to one particular site have top secret clearances. The protester initially argued that, in seeking armed security guards with top secret clearances, GSA was procuring other than standard commercial services and that regulations require the procurement to be open for 30 days, not 22 days. However, GAO determined that, since security guards with top secret clearances were required at only 1 of the 10 sites and represented less than 10 percent of the procurement, it did not significantly alter the character of the procurement as one predominantly for standard security guard services. Moreover, the record showed that seven companies submitted bids under the solicitation within the time allowed; therefore, it appeared that the services requested were not of such a nature that a 30-day bidding period was required. GAO agreed with the protester's contention that the solicitation should have included a performance commencement date. However, its argument was weakened by the fact that it had possession of the solicitation some time prior to bid opening and never requested the information from GSA. Accordingly, the protest was denied.