Hago-Cantu Joint Venture, B-279637.2, July 20, 1998

B-279637.2 Jul 20, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Agency did not conduct misleading discussions where protester and awardee both initially proposed similar number of staffing hours for food services and the agency advised both offerors that these staffing hours were understated. Protest that agency should have found awardee's proposal technically unacceptable because awardee may not comply with requirement that at least 50 percent of the cost of personnel incurred must be for employees of a small business concern is denied where awardee stated in its proposal that it would comply with the requirement and submitted a compliance certification to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year options to the offeror whose proposal was determined the best overall value to the government. View Decision Matter of: Hago-Cantu Joint Venture File: B-279637.2 Date: July 20, 1998 * Redacted Decision DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hago-Cantu Joint Venture protests the award of a contract to Heritage Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAHC77-97-R-0015, issued by the Department of the Army as a competitive 8(a) set-aside for full food and dining facility attendant services at various Army installations on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Hago-Cantu challenges the agency's evaluation of technical proposals, the conduct of discussions, and the agency's participation in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) determination of the awardee's eligibility for award. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued October 7, 1997, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year with four 1-year options to the offeror whose proposal was determined the best overall value to the government. RFP Sec. M.2. Section M.3 of the RFP identified the following evaluation factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance: 1. Technical a. Staffing and Personnel Qualifications b. Methodology c. Mobilization/Phase-in Plan 2. Quality Control a. Quality Control Plan b. Safety c. Training d. Strike Contingency Plan e. Key Control and Physical Security/Property Control 3. Experience and Past Performance 4. Supplies a. Chemicals/Cleaning Supplies b. Vehicles (for food transport) In order to ensure that adequate staffing was provided, offerors were required to submit staffing charts showing the number of staff-hours proposed in each labor category. The staffing proposed in each chart would become the minimum required during the contract performance period unless the manning charts were modified by mutual agreement. RFP Sec. L.24. The RFP also required that proposals include a list of all contracts and subcontracts completed during the past 3 years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in progress for the same or similar services. This information was to be provided for the offeror and proposed major subcontractors. The RFP specifically provided that information regarding significant subcontractors and key personnel would be considered. RFP Sec. L.27. Proposals were to be scored on the basis of adjectival ratings of "exceptional," "acceptable," "marginal," and "unacceptable." Evaluated price was based on the total price of all line items for the base and option years. The RFP also included by reference the "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause set forth at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 52.219-14, as is statutorily required for all solicitations reserved for exclusive small business participation. /1/ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 644(o)(1)(A) (1994). The clause provides that: (b) By submission of an offer and execution of a contract, the Offeror/Contractor agrees that in performance of the contract in the case of a contract for -- (1) Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern. After submission of initial offers, discussions, and submission of revised proposals and best and final offers (BAFO), the Army concluded that the Heritage proposal represented the best value to the government. /2/ The awardee's and the protester's BAFOs were found to be technically equal, with both assigned "acceptable" ratings on each evaluation factor and subfactor and both rated "acceptable" overall. Heritage's total price was $17,337,532; Hago-Cantu's total price was $19,311,979. After notifying Hago-Cantu of the selection decision on March 24, 1998, the Army provided a debriefing to the company, which was concluded on April 7. This protest followed. MISLEADING DISCUSSIONS Hago-Cantu first argues that the Army engaged in improper discussions as a result of which the protestor was misled into raising its price.