MTP (JV), B-276903, July 31, 1997

B-276903 Jul 31, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester should have recognized need to provide basic information necessary to evaluate its proposal. MTP contends that discussions were inadequate to alert it to the omission from its proposal of information necessary to establish the qualifications of its project manager. The RFP stated that past performance was more important than price and that the agency intended to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal met the government's minimum technical requirements and offered the best past performance. Were as follows: (i) Must possess. Were as follows: (i) Three years in government/commercial galley/kitchen and dining room facilities with equipment and operations equivalent to that involved in the performance of this contract. View Decision Matter of: MTP (JV) File: B-276903 Date: July 31, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION MTP (JV), a joint venture of Traction Systems, Inc. and McClean's Restoration Services, protests the award of a contract to D.E.W. Joint Venture under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00604-96-R-0063, for mess attendant services at the Marine Corps base, Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. MTP contends that discussions were inadequate to alert it to the omission from its proposal of information necessary to establish the qualifications of its project manager. We deny the protest. On October 16, 1996, the agency issued the RFP for a firm, fixed-price contract, to provide labor and supplies to serve food and clean the dining halls at the base, for a base period (established through subsequent amendment as 6 months), with four 1-year option periods. The solicitation provided for evaluation of technical and past performance factors, in addition to price. The RFP stated that past performance was more important than price and that the agency intended to make award to the responsible offeror whose proposal met the government's minimum technical requirements and offered the best past performance. The RFP stated that the evaluators would consider whether offerors met minimum technical requirements in the areas of key personnel, manning charts, quality control program, strike/job plan, and housekeeping/cleaning plan. Initially, the agency considered the positions of project manager and alternate project manager as key personnel; the Navy subsequently modified the solicitation to delete the requirement for an alternate project manager. [1] The RFP required key personnel to submit two forms attached to the solicitation, a "personnel qualifications sheet" and a "personnel data form" (PDF), demonstrating that they possessed the necessary education/training and experience for the position. The education/training requirements for the project manager, set out in paragraph L101c.(2)(a)(1)A., were as follows: (i) Must possess, at a minimum, a high School Diploma or equivalent, and (ii) Successful completion of a Community College Certificate in Food Service or similar course work. Based on curriculum which included courses in food service operations and food service management (iii) Substitution for paragraph A.(ii) shall equal not less than five years of institutionalized, e.g., military, hospital, prison, school or college, food service. [2] The experience requirements, set out in paragraph L101c.(2)(a)(1)B., were as follows: (i) Three years in government/commercial galley/kitchen and dining room facilities with equipment and operations equivalent to that involved in the performance of this contract, and (ii) Two years of work experience as a manager over work force described in previous paragraph. The RFP provided instructions on preparation of the PDF, directing offerors to identify the areas of work experience pertinent to the required effort. It specifically mentioned the need to indicate the periods of time served in the qualifying positions. On December 10, the agency received nine proposals, which it referred to a technical evaluation board (TEB). On January 14, 1997, the TEB advised the contracting officer that, of the nine, only one was technically acceptable as submitted. The agency determined that all nine offerors were in the competitive range and opened discussions. With respect to MTP, the firm had simply failed to include any dates on the project manager's resume, making it impossible to determine how long he had served in the positions indicated. There was no indication that the individual had the required high school degree. There was no claim that the individual had a community college certificate in food service or, absent any meaningful information on the individual's experience, whether the protester intended to offer experience as a substitute for the certificate.