United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

Comptroller General

of the United States

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. 

Decision 

Matter of: American Security Programs, Inc. 

File: B-402069; B-402069.2 

Date: January 15, 2010 

James S. Phillips, Esq., Brian C. Caney, Esq., Lewis P. Rhodes, Esq., and Kristine 

Kassekert, Esq., Centre Law Group, LLC, for the protester. 

John W. Polk, Esq., Seth C. Berenzweig, Esq., Stephanie D. Wilson, Esq., and 

Terrence M. O’Connor, Esq., Albo & Oblon, LLP, for Coastal International Security, 

Inc., the intervenor. 

Maria Bellizzi, Esq., General Services Administration, for the agency. 

Kenneth Kilgour, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, 

GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. 

DIGEST 

Protest that vendor is ineligible to receive a task order under Federal Supply 

Schedule (FSS) procurement is sustained where certain required services are outside 

the scope of the vendor’s FSS contract. 

DECISION 

American Security Programs, Inc. (ASP), of Dulles, Virginia, protests the issuance of 

a task order to Coastal International Security, Inc. (CIS), of Lorton, Virginia, by the 

General Services Administration (GSA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. 

NP9700090888 for construction site security services. ASP alleges that CIS is 

ineligible to receive an order because it does not offer all the services required by the 

RFQ on its Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contract. 

We sustain the protest. 

The RFQ was issued under Federal Supply Schedule 84, Security Support Services, 

Special Item Numbers (SIN) 246-52, Professional Security/Facility Management 

Services; 246-54, Protective Service Occupations; and/or 246-60 2, Security 

Management and Support Services. The agency required construction site security 

sufficient to ensure that the finished facility would obtain sensitive compartmented 

information facility (SCIF) accreditation from the Defense Intelligence Agency 

(DIA). The services required under the RFQ included the development and 
formation of a Construction Security Plan, preparation and submission of daily, 

monthly, and quarterly reports detailing performance under the task order, 

construction site security program management services, construction surveillance 

technical services, access control services, security monitoring services, transition 

services, and quality assurance. RFQ §§ 2.4-2.6.1. The estimated value of the order 

was approximately $14 million. The RFQ stated that “[a]ny quote that contains 

products/services that are not currently on the contractor’s schedule contract . . . 

will be ineligible for award.” Id. at § 18.1. The RFQ informed vendors that the 

agency would select the vendor whose quotation was the most advantageous to the 

government, price and other factors considered; technical approach was more 

important than price. Id. at § 18.0. 

Three vendors, including CIS and the protester, timely responded to the RFQ. ASP 

submitted its quotation under SINs 246-52 and 246-54, and CIS submitted its 

quotation under SIN 246-54. The agency performed an initial consensus evaluation, 

conducted discussions, and reevaluated quotations. Based on the results of that 

evaluation process, the agency issued the task order to CIS, and this protest 

followed. 

The protester asserts that the awardee is ineligible for award because it does not 

offer all the services required by the RFQ on its FSS contract.1

 The FSS program, 

directed and managed by GSA, gives federal agencies a simplified process for 

obtaining commonly used commercial supplies and services. Federal Acquisition 

Regulation § 8.401(a). The procedures established for the FSS program satisfy the 

statutory requirements for full and open competition. Sales Res. Consultants, Inc., 

B-284943, B-284943.2, June 9, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 102 at 3-4. Where an agency 

announces its intention to order from an existing GSA FSS contractor, it means that 

the agency intends to order all items using GSA FSS procedures and that all items 

are required to be within the scope of the vendor’s FSS contract. See Armed Forces 

Merch. Outlet, Inc., B-294281, Oct. 12, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 218 at 4. Non-FSS products 

and services may not be purchased using FSS procedures; instead, their purchase 

requires compliance with the applicable procurement laws and regulations, 

including those requiring the use of competitive procedures. OMNIPLEX World 

Servs. Corp., B-291105, Nov. 6, 2002, 2002 CPD ¶ 199 at 4-5. 

ASP asserts that the Construction Site Security Program Management services 

required under the RFQ are outside the scope of CIS’s FSS contract. Those services 

 

1

 The intervenor argues that this protest allegation is an untimely challenge to the 

terms of the solicitation, which should have been filed prior to the deadline for 

submission of quotations. See Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(1) (2009). 

We disagree. The protester alleges that the intervenor is not eligible to fulfill the 

requirements of the solicitation; the allegation goes to the evaluation of the awardee. 

It is not a protest of the terms of the solicitation. 

Page 2 B-402069, B-402069.2 
include the development and implementation of a Construction Security Plan, which 

requires close coordination between the construction contractor, the Washington 

Headquarters Services/Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) Program Office 

(WHS/BPO), the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Alexandria Police Department, 

and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency. The final plan requires approval by the 

WHS/BPO Program Security Manager. RFQ § 2.6.1, CSSPM Services. To satisfy the 

requirements of the RFQ under section 2.6.1, the vendor also has to identify, discuss 

in detail, and coordinate all site-specific security aspects of the project to include the 

physical, technical, personnel, and procedural security requirements. Through site 

inspections, daily written reports and written construction site security contractor 

updates, the contractor must verify to GSA and to the WHS/BPA Program Security 

Manager that all security requirements have been met in accordance with the 

government-approved Construction Security Plan, and all applicable instructions, 

policies, and regulations have been satisfied. Id. 

ASP argues that these tasks required services of a professional and consulting 

nature, unlike the other three major RFQ tasks that could be performed with 

services from the protective services arena, and that the personnel required to 

perform those services are not available under the SIN CSI offered--SIN 246-54. See

RFQ § 2.6, Tasks. The intervenor and the agency argue that the scope of SIN 246-54 

is in fact broad enough to encompass the required services. They point to the 

category description for SIN 246-54, which states: 

Protective Service Occupations -- Including Security Guards, Alarm 

Monitors, Baggage Inspectors, Corrections Officers, Court Security 

Officers, Detection Dog Handlers, Detention Officers, Firefighters, 

Police Officers, Categories to support Operation On-site of Security 

Functions, and other support and related categories. 

Agency Report (AR), Tab 3 at 3. 

When a concern arises that a vendor is offering services outside the scope of its FSS 

contract, the relevant inquiry is not whether the vendor is willing to provide the 

services that the agency is seeking, but whether the services or positions offered are 

actually included on the vendor’s FSS contract, as reasonably interpreted. See

American Sys. Consulting, Inc., B-294644, Dec. 13, 2004, 2004 CPD ¶ 247 at 5. 

As the category description above shows, SIN 246-54 includes the types of personnel 

necessary to staff security operations at a facility, or to support those personnel. 

While the support function category logically includes those personnel who assist 

the protective service occupations in carrying out their functions, it does not 

reasonably include individuals who would create the construction site security plan 

for the purposes of obtaining SCIF accreditation from DIA. Moreover, we have 

previously recognized the difference in the kinds of personnel available under SINs 

246-54 and 246-52. See Tarheel Specialties, Inc., B-298197, B-298197.2, July 17, 2006, 

2006 CPD ¶ 140, at 4-9. 

Page 3 B-402069, B-402069.2 
The intervenor argues that SIN 246-54 does include a position--contract manager--

that contemplates the type of services called for in the RFQ relating to development 

of the Construction Security Plan and related services. In this regard, CIS asserts 

that the Construction Security Plan “is a relatively simple and straightforward 

document, typically resulting in a checklist developed based on the particulars of 

each construction project,” and does not require “an array of specialized experience 

apart from providing day-to-day construction site security.” CIS Comments, Dec. 30, 

2009, Attach. 1, Decl. of John S. Morris at 2. 

In our view, the contract manager position description in SIN 246-54 does not 

include the functions contemplated under the RFQ here as they relate to 

development of the Construction Security Plan and the associated services to be 

provided by the contractor. SIN 246-54 describes the contract manager in relevant 

part as having “overall responsibility for implementing, monitoring, and upgrading 

the Contractor’s quality control plan and . . . for ensuring that the Contractor’s work 

force complies at all times with the contract requirements.” AR, Tab 4, SIN 246-54, 

§ 7.1C. With respect to the experience required for the position, the SIN states as 

follows: “project development and implementation from inspection to deployment; 

expertise in the management and control of funds and resources using complex 

reporting mechanisms; and demonstrated capability in managing multi-task 

Contracts or subcontracts of various types and complexity” Id. at § 7.1A. The 

experience and functions listed in the position description, while clearly managerial, 

are general in nature and, in our view, do not include the site-specific, detailed, 

ongoing management services called for under the RFQ here--including the 

development of a Construction Security Plan. We are unpersuaded by the 

intervenor’s argument that development of the Construction Security Plan (and 

related services to be performed by the contractor here) should be regarded as a 

routine and inherent part of management of any construction site security work of 

the type called for under the RFQ, and thus that performance of these services does 

not require personnel other than the supervisory personnel included in SIN 246-54.2 

As noted above, the RFQ calls for a site-specific Construction Security Plan that 

depends on close coordination with numerous other entities, as well as ongoing 

services related to ensuring compliance with the Plan in order to obtain SCIF 

accreditation. RFQ § 2.6.1. These services are not within scope of the supervisory 

positions described in SIN 246-54. 

In sum, CIS’ quotation should not have been viewed as having met the RFQ 

requirement that the vendor possess an FSS contract offering all the services sought. 

 

2

 In addition to the contract manager position, SIN 246-54 includes a position entitled 

“supervisor,” which is defined as the individual providing day-to-day supervision of 

the security guards under this contract at the work site. 

Page 4 B-402069, B-402069.2 
Page 5 B-402069, B-402069.2 

 

Consequently, it was not proper for the agency to place the order under CIS’ FSS 

contract.3 

In view of our conclusion that an order may not properly be issued to CIS under the 

RFQ here, we recommend that the agency issue the task order to the vendor next in 

line for selection under the terms of the RFQ. We also recommend that ASP be 

reimbursed its costs of filing and pursuing the protest. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 

C.F.R. § 21.8(d)(1). The protester’s certified claims for such costs, detailing the time 

expended and costs incurred, must be submitted directly to the agency within 60 

days after receipt of this decision. 4 C.F.R. § 21.8(f)(1). 

The protest is sustained. 

Lynn H. Gibson 

Acting General Counsel 

3

 The protester raised a number of other allegations, including that the agency failed 

to conduct a proper price/technical tradeoff, the agency’s evaluation of the 

intervenor’s quotation was unreasonable, discussions were not properly conducted, 

the agency failed to reevaluate the intervenor’s quotation after discussions, and the 

agency converted the basis for the selection decision from a best value 

determination to lowest-priced, technically acceptable. Because we conclude that 

CIS is ineligible to receive the order, we need not consider these other allegations.