Inn Towne Lodge, B-278251, December 24, 1997

B-278251 Dec 24, 1997 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DIGEST Contracting officer reasonably determined that protester was not responsible based on facility inspection. The protester contends that the contracting officer's determination that it was nonresponsible was improper. The solicitation was issued on August 11. The solicitation was limited to facilities that were located within 12 miles of the MEPS and had eating facilities located within the lodging facility or within 300 feet of the facility. The food/meal facility was required to have successfully passed its most recent public health inspection. Copies of the checklists to be used by the MEPS when conducting inspections were enclosed with the IFB. Bidders were also advised that they would be allowed 48 hours after inspection to correct any deficiencies found during the inspection. View Decision Matter of: Inn Towne Lodge File: B-278251 Date: December 24, 1997 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Inn Towne Lodge protests the rejection of its low bid and the award of a contract to Command Management Services, Inc. under invitation for bids (IFB) No. DABT23-97-B-0074, issued by the Department of the Army for meals, lodging, and transportation for military applicants processing at the Kansas City, Missouri, Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS). The protester contends that the contracting officer's determination that it was nonresponsible was improper. We deny the protest. The solicitation was issued on August 11, 1997, and sought bids for a requirements contract for meals, lodging, and transportation for military applicants for a base period with up to four 1-year option periods. The solicitation was limited to facilities that were located within 12 miles of the MEPS and had eating facilities located within the lodging facility or within 300 feet of the facility. The food/meal facility was required to have successfully passed its most recent public health inspection. The solicitation also provided that the MEPS would conduct a facility inspection within 24 hours after bid opening and that facilities must comply with standards established in the performance work statement. Copies of the checklists to be used by the MEPS when conducting inspections were enclosed with the IFB. Bidders were also advised that they would be allowed 48 hours after inspection to correct any deficiencies found during the inspection. Award was to be made to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder. Five bids, including Inn Towne's, were received on September 9. Inn Towne submitted the apparent low bid; however, its bid package did not contain an original signature on the Standard Form 1449. The agency reports that while researching the signature issue, on September 11, it conducted an inspection of the protester's facility. [1] As a result of the inspection, the protester's facility received unsatisfactory ratings in several areas. For example, the MEPS inspection team found that the air conditioning units were dirty, major cleaning and repair work was needed in every inspected room, emergency evacuation instructions were not posted in rooms, and the dining area was dirty throughout. Additionally, the guest bathrooms were found to have loose and missing tiles, stained tubs, mildew, lack of caulking, stained and dirty tiles, stained and dirty floors, soft or loose floors, walls and ceilings, loose base boards, as well as ceiling, floor and wall cracks. During the inspection, the agency also learned that the facility had not passed its most recent Kansas City Environmental Health Services inspection on the basis of the same type of problems, and that the protester had lost its Missouri State Lodging License. Based on the facility inspection, Inn Towne was determined to be nonresponsible. The protester asserts that the nonresponsibility determination was improper because the survey was inappropriate and was allegedly conducted by unauthorized and unqualified agency personnel, and because the protester was never allowed the "48 hours after inspection to correct any deficiencies found during the inspection" as provided for in the solicitation. Subsequent to the filing of this protest, the agency provided the protester a copy of the original inspection report and gave the protester 48 hours to correct the stated deficiencies. The facility was reinspected on October 24, and the protester had failed to correct the stated deficiencies. In general, the determination of a prospective contractor's responsibility is the duty of the contracting officer, who is vested with a wide degree of discretion and business judgment. We therefore will not question a responsibility determination unless the record shows bad faith on the part of contracting officials or that the determination lacks a reasonable basis. Standard Tank Cleaning Corp., B-245364, Jan. 2, 1992, 92-1 CPD para. 3 at 3.