D.F. Zee's Fire Fighter Catering, B-280767.4, September 10, 1999

B-280767.4 Sep 10, 1999 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest that the agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's final revised offer (FRO) under certain technical evaluation factors is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable. Even though the protester's FRO and previous offer were substantially the same. Does not establish that the FRO evaluation was unreasonable. 2. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of the awardees' higher-priced proposals for the awards were unreasonable. The successful contractors under the RFP are required to provide hot and cold meals and supplemental items during wildland fires and other activities at the locations and periods specified in each contract line item (CLIN). View Decision Matter of: D.F. Zee's Fire Fighter Catering File: B-280767.4 Date: September 10, 1999 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION D.F. Zee's Fire Fighter Catering (DFZ) protests the awards of contracts to Z-Best Company and Port-A-Pit Catering under request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-98-10, issued by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for mobile food services. The protester argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals and selection of the awardees' higher-priced proposals for the awards were unreasonable. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on March 11, 1998, provided for award of fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity, requirements contracts for a 1-year base period with four 1-year options. RFP Secs. B, at 2, L.5, at 138. The successful contractors under the RFP are required to provide hot and cold meals and supplemental items during wildland fires and other activities at the locations and periods specified in each contract line item (CLIN). RFP Sec. C-1.1, at 12. For example, CLINs 16 and 17 (the CLINs that are the subjects of this protest) required that the contractor have the necessary equipment based within 20 miles of Bend, Oregon, from June 15 through September 30, and July 1 through September 30, respectively, and be available to provide the required services during these periods should the need arise. RFP Sec. B, at 4. Each offeror could offer to perform the services at any location or multiple locations, so long as the contractor remained available at the required times at the locations offered (i.e., the availability dates at two locations did not overlap). 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 Sec. M.4, at 151. The RFP added that these "non-price factors" as a whole would be considered more significant than price in determining which proposals represented the best overall value. 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 Sec. L.9, at 139-41. The RFP specified that the equipment offered would first be evaluated against the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP to determine technical acceptability, and if the equipment were determined acceptable, it would then "be evaluated based upon the Mobile Food Service Unit's flexibility for efficient feeding." Id. at 140. In this regard, the RFP required that offerors submit drawings of the Mobile Food Service Unit offered "indicating equipment location, traffic flow, layout, size of unit, etc." Id. The agency received proposals from 21 offerors by the RFP's April 24, 1998, closing date. Agency Report, Tab R8, Prenegotiation Memorandum, at 2. The proposals were forwarded to a technical evaluation team (TET) for review. Sixteen proposals were included in the initial competitive range. The agency scheduled and conducted inspections of each offeror's proposed equipment, during which discussions were also held. Id. at 3. The agency found the equipment proposed by one offeror to be technically unacceptable. The remaining 15 proposals were further evaluated by the agency. One offeror subsequently withdrew from the competition, and the agency excluded three more proposals from the competitive range. Id. at 6; Agency Memorandum of Law at 3. The agency requested and received best and final offers (BAFO) from the offerors whose proposals remained in the competitive range, and the TET made tentative award recommendations for some of the CLINs. Agency Memorandum of Law at 3. Two of the three offerors whose proposals were excluded from the competitive range filed protests with our Office.