Wilderness Mountain Catering, B-280767.2, December 28, 1998

B-280767.2 Dec 28, 1998 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights From considering protester's performance under the contract that was the subject of the dispute where the settlement agreement did not require agency to disregard contractor's performance. A condition to a settlement agreement that is not clearly set out in the language of the agreement will not be inferred. The successful contractors under the RFP will be required to provide hot and cold meals and supplemental items at various locations during wildland fires and other activities throughout the contiguous western United States. Part A was to address the equipment and ability to understand and perform the work evaluation factors. Part B was to address the past performance and experience factors. View Decision Matter of: Wilderness Mountain Catering File: B-280767.2 Date: December 28, 1998 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Wilderness Mountain Catering protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-98-10, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for mobile food services. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 11, 1998, provided for multiple awards of fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, requirements contracts with 1-year base periods and four 1-year options. RFP at 2. The successful contractors under the RFP will be required to provide hot and cold meals and supplemental items at various locations during wildland fires and other activities throughout the contiguous western United States. RFP at 12. The RFP stated that awards would be made to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to be most advantageous to the government, and listed the following evaluation factors in descending order of importance: (a) Past Performance, (b) Equipment, (c) Ability to Understand and Perform the Work, and (d) Experience. /1/ RFP at 151. The RFP added that these "non-price factors" as a whole would be considered more important than price in determining which proposals represented the best overall values. Id. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that the offerors' technical proposals consist of two parts. Part A was to address the equipment and ability to understand and perform the work evaluation factors, and part B was to address the past performance and experience factors. RFP at 139-41. With regard to past performance, the RFP specified that each offeror was to prepare a "Past Performance Chart." RFP at 141. The RFP required that each offeror's chart include "a brief description of their company's overall past performance in relation to the contract requirements and specifications," and stated that "the information must be presented so that the Agency may verify it." Id. The agency received a number of proposals, including Wilderness's, by the April 24, 1998 due date. The proposals were forwarded to a technical evaluation team (TET). Upon completion of the TET's review, the proposals which failed to meet certain minimum requirements set forth in the solicitation were eliminated from the competition. The remaining proposals were subject to additional evaluation, which included "site visits to inspect the equipment offered." Contracting Officer's Report at 1. The TET evaluated Wilderness's proposal as marginal overall, with ratings of red/unacceptable under the past performance factor, green/acceptable under the equipment factor, yellow/marginal under the ability to understand and perform the work factor, and green/acceptable under the experience factor. Agency Report (Tab O) Memorandum of Law at 25. The TET forwarded its conclusions to the contracting officer, who determined that Wilderness's proposal should be excluded from the competitive range as it was not among the most highly rated. Agency Report (Tab P5, Attachment 5) Mobile Food Service Solicitation Technical Consensus Summary at 7. Wilderness was informed by letter dated July 17 that its proposal had been excluded from the competitive range. Agency Report (Tab I) Contracting Officer's notification to Wilderness of its exclusion from the competitive range. Wilderness requested a debriefing, and received an oral debriefing on July 30. Wilderness filed an agency-level protest on August 3. Agency Report (Tab M) Wilderness's protest to the Department of Agriculture. The agency denied Wilderness's agency-level protest on September 4, Agency Report (Tab L) Contracting Officer's response to Wilderness's agency-level protest, and Wilderness filed its protest with our Office on September 17. Wilderness first argues that the agency improperly considered in the evaluation certain information regarding the protester's performance "prior to 1996." Wilderness's Protest, Exhibit A, Wilderness's August 3 protest to the Department of Agriculture at 2.