Speedy Food Service, Inc.

B-274406 Dec 09, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to conduct sufficiently specific discussions with the protester regarding its staffing is denied where the record shows that the discussion questions asked conveyed the agency's concerns about staffing which reasonably could be discerned from the protester's initial proposal. Agencies are not required to notify offerors of deficiencies remaining in their proposals or to conduct successive rounds of discussions until such deficiencies are removed. One of which is at issue here. Which was divided into several sub-CLINs to account for a varying range in the average number of meals served. Offerors were also given estimated work-load data for the services to be provided. View Decision Matter of: Speedy Food Service, Inc. File: B-274406 Date: December 9, 1996 Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to conduct sufficiently specific discussions with the protester regarding its staffing is denied where the record shows that the discussion questions asked conveyed the agency's concerns about staffing which reasonably could be discerned from the protester's initial proposal, and the specific area of concern only became evident upon review of the protester's best and final offer (BAFO) and post-BAFO clarification of proposed staffing; agencies are not required to notify offerors of deficiencies remaining in their proposals or to conduct successive rounds of discussions until such deficiencies are removed. Attorneys DECISION Speedy Food Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Cantu Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT39-95-R-0002, issued by the Department of the Army to obtain food services at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Speedy argues that the Army conducted inadequate discussions with it and improperly selected the awardee's slightly higher-priced proposal. We deny the protest. The solicitation describes Fort Sill's requirements for food services as falling into two categories, one of which is at issue here. Management and food production (M&FP) services include the preparation and serving of food and associated administrative tasks. The solicitation accounted for those dining facilities requiring M&FP services in one contract line item (CLIN), which was divided into several sub-CLINs to account for a varying range in the average number of meals served. Offerors were also given estimated work-load data for the services to be provided, including the headcounts for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Proposals would be evaluated under technical, management, and price factors, in descending order of importance. The technical factor contained five subfactors, the first and fourth most important of which were, respectively, the organization and staffing subfactor and the property administration subfactor. The nonprice factors and subfactors would be point-scored and adjectivally rated. Price would not be scored, but its importance would increase, and could become the controlling factor, if differences between the offerors' technical/management scores were small or nonexistent. Award would be made to the firm whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. The Army's source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the eight proposals submitted and included five of them in the competitive range. Discussions were conducted, best and final offers (BAFO) were submitted, and clarifications were requested and received. The final evaluation results show that Firm A received a higher overall rating than either Cantu or Speedy, but offered a higher price. Cantu was rated 85 overall, to Speedy's 84, both "excellent" ratings--Cantu received "excellent" ratings under both the technical and management factors, and Speedy received a "satisfactory" rating under the technical factor and an "excellent" rating under the management factor. Cantu's price of $21,841,901 was slightly higher than Speedy's price of $21,799,561. In making his source selection decision, the contracting officer declined to follow the SSEB's recommendation to award the contract to Firm A, since he believed that the firm's advantages did not justify its additional cost. He noted Cantu's excellent ratings under both the technical and management factors and the fact that its price was lower than Firm A's price. While he recognized the SSEB's concern with Cantu's low staffing levels during the serving hours, citing an example, he determined that the levels were only slightly lower than those currently used by Cantu as the incumbent subcontractor providing these services. The contracting officer recognized that Speedy offered a lower price than Cantu, but pointed to its lower technical rating, which was primarily due to the SSEB's concern with the firm's inadequate staffing during serving time and problems with the firm's property control system.