TMI Services, Inc., B-283677.3, May 17, 2000

B-283677.3 May 17, 2000 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protest of agency's evaluation of proposals is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the applicable evaluation factors. 2. Higher-priced proposal is unobjectionable where the solicitation provided that technical considerations were more important than price and the agency reasonably concluded that the technical superiority of the awardee's proposal warranted payment of the associated price premium. TMI principally contends that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and that TMI should have been selected for award. Capability was to be evaluated on the basis of experience. If five government references were not available. An offeror's capability was to be the basis for developing the government's level of confidence. View Decision Matter of: TMI Services, Inc. File: B-283677.3 Date: May 17, 2000 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION TMI Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to MCS Management, Inc. (MCS) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00681-99-R-0004, issued by the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton for full food services and mess attendant services for various messhalls at Camp Pendleton. TMI principally contends that the agency's evaluation was unreasonable and that TMI should have been selected for award. We deny the protest. The solicitation, issued February 1, 1999 as a total small business set-aside, commercial-item procurement, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract to provide full food and mess attendant services at Camp Pendleton for a base year with option periods of 3 months not to exceed 12 months. RFP Sec. A.1. The RFP provided for award to the responsible offeror whose conforming offer provided the best value to the government, price and other factors considered. RFP Sec. A.10.3.a. The RFP called for the evaluation of the proposals under the criteria of experience/ past performance, resumes of key personnel, understanding the work, compliance with RFP instructions and price. Id. The RFP stated that a proposal would be evaluated and considered acceptable if it manifests the offeror's unconditional assent to the terms and conditions of the RFP, and that the capability of offerors that submitted acceptable offers would be evaluated. RFP Sec. A.10.3.b. Capability was to be evaluated on the basis of experience, past performance, understanding the work, price and compliance with RFP instructions. RFP Sec. A.10.3.b.2. Under experience, the RFP provided for an assessment of an offeror's work records to determine whether, during the past 3 years, the offeror had the opportunity to learn about relevant work processes and procedures and about the nature, difficulties, uncertainties and risks associated with performing the work required by the solicitation. RFP Sec. A.10.3.b.2.i. Under past performance, the RFP called for offerors to furnish a total combination of five references for each present government contract. RFP Sec. A.10.3.b.2.ii. If five government references were not available, then offerors could provide references from private industry. Id. The RFP also provided that references not identified by the offeors could be contacted by the government with respect to information used in the evaluation of the offeror's past performance. In determining the best overall value, the RFP stated that the government would consider an offeror's capability and the government's level of confidence in the offeror to be significantly more important than price. RFP Sec. A.10.3.c. An offeror's capability was to be the basis for developing the government's level of confidence. When assessing offeror capability, the RFP provided that the government would consider experience, past performance and understanding the work to be more important than compliance with the RFP instructions. In reaching the best overall value determination, the RFP provided that the agency would make a series of paired comparisons among those offerors that submitted acceptable offers. RFP Sec. A.10.3.d. In this regard, the RFP specifically provided that if, in a paired comparison, the offeror with the higher expected value had the higher price, then the agency would decide whether the difference in expected value was worth the difference in price. Id. Twelve proposals were received, including those of TMI and MCS. TMI currently has a contract at Camp Pendleton for mess attendant services only. The technical proposals were evaluated by the technical evaluation team. The contracting officer reviewed the technical evaluation team's findings and the proposals, and independently determined that award should be made to MCS on the basis that it offered the best value to the government. Agency Report, Tab 10. On September 7, 1999, a notice of intent to award to MCS was sent to all offerors. Agency Report, Tab 11.