We find the agency's request reasonable, and we therefore modify our recommendation for immediate termination and award. See SMF Sys. Tech. Corp. , B-292419.3, Nov. 26, 2003, 2003 CPD 203 at 6-7 (disruption to agency's mission to provide medical services was considered in fashioning recommendation); J&J/BMAR Joint Venture, LLP--Costs , B-290316.7, July 22, 2003, 2003 CPD 129 at 2 (wartime exigencies provide reasonable basis for delay in implementing corrective action). However, given the agency's advice that its need for guard services at the embassy has changed substantially--DOS characterizes it as "a major change in personnel requirements," Recon. Request at 16--the proper approach in these circumstances is reflected in DOS's second alternative, to issue a new solicitation that reflects actual needs at the new facilities, and then award a contract for guard services at the new facilities under that solicitation. In light of the above, we recommend that (1) DOS expeditiously conduct a competition for its needs at the new embassy compound, to include award and transition (depending on the results of the competition) as close to the scheduled June 24 move as is practicable [5] ; (2) reimburse Inter-Con its proposal preparation costs; and (3)reimburse Inter-Con the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including attorneys' fees (as we initially recommended), as well as the costs of responding to the agency's reconsideration request. (Department of State; Wackenhut International, Inc.--Reconsideration and Modification of Recommendation, B-295352.3; B-295352.4, April 19, 2005)  (pdf)

We sustain the protest on the ground that WII provided insufficient information--and the agency lacked any other sufficient information--to establish that it satisfied the business volume requirements for purposes of establishing its U.S. person status; there thus was no rational basis for the agency to find WII eligible for the 10-percent price preference. Moreover, given the agency's and WII's failure to present--during the course of the procurement or in responding to this protest--financial statements showing adequate revenues for WII itself, or other information showing that WII had the requisite revenue from its joint venture contracts, there simply is no reason to believe that WII is able to meet the business volume requirement. Accordingly, WII was not entitled to the preference, and we therefore recommend that the agency terminate WII's contract and make award to Inter-Con.  (Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., B-295352; B-295352.2, February 8, 2005) (pdf)

In addition, while the mischaracterization of the project officers award recommendation is the most significant and clear misstatement in the Source Selection Determination document, it is not the only one. Page 6 of that document states that [p]roposed costs have been closely examined by the Contract Specialist, Contracting Officer, as well as the Project Officer, and have been found reasonable and acceptable. In contrast, the Memorandum from the Project Officers, at page 5, argues that IQs proposed costs may not be reasonable. Moreover, there is evidence that the COs mischaracterizations continued into agency filings prepared for our bid protest process. As a final matter, we feel compelled to comment on the effect of the COs actions in this case beyond the impact on the adequacy of the selection decision. Though this decision is based on the effect of the COs actions on the award determination--and not on the effect of those actions on the integrity of the bid protest process--there is no disputing that our review was rendered considerably less efficient than it would have been, had these matters come to light sooner, rather than later. The agency's failure to produce all relevant documents and to provide a timely factual explanation of the events in this procurement, as required by 4 C.F.R. 21.3(d) (2004), has impeded the operation of our bid protest process. In addition, we think the effect of the COs actions on this procurement weigh against her continued involvement in this matter. Therefore, we recommend that HHS use a different selection official to prepare the new selection decision. If the new source selection decision determines that an offeror other than IQ offers the best value to the government, HHS should terminate IQs contract for the convenience of the government and make award to the successful offeror. (University Research Company, LLC, B-294358; B-294358.2; B-294358.3; B-294358.4; B-294358.5, October 28, 2004) (pdf)

We conclude that Metrica materially misrepresented the level of commitment by 3 of 11 key personnel as part of its quotation here. While, as our discussion of prior cases above shows, we have not always recommended exclusion notwithstanding a material misrepresentation, we believe that the submission of a misrepresentation that materially influences the agency’s evaluation should disqualify the offer (or, as in this case, the quotation). As our Office stated in Informatics, Inc., supra, the integrity of the system demands no less. We therefore recommend that the Army exclude Metrica’s quotation from consideration, and, in light of the evaluation results regarding the other two vendors, issue a purchase order to ACS. (ACS Government Services, Inc., B-293014, January 20, 2004) (pdf)