Eurest Support Services, B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7, July 3, 2001

Eurest Support Services, B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7, July 3, 2001 TITLE: Eurest Support Services, B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7, July 3, 2001 BNUMBER: B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7 DATE: July 3, 2001 ********************************************************************** Eurest Support Services, B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7, July 3, 2001 DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Eurest Support Services File: B-285813.3; B-285813.4; B-285813.5; B-285882.4; B‑285882.5; B-285882.7 Date: July 3, 2001 James J. Regan, Esq., Shauna E. Alonge, Esq., Elizabeth W. Newsom, Esq., and Daniel R. Forman, Esq., Crowell & Moring LLP, for the protester. Mathew S. Perlman, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Natalie S. Walters, Esq., Arent Fox, for Sodexho Marriott Management, an intervenor. Julius Rothlein, Esq., Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency. David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against award of primarily fixed-price incentive contracts for regional garrison food service at U.S. Marine Corps installations is sustained where agency did not properly assess realism of awardee's low proposed target price, which was the principal basis for determination that awardee's evaluated price was low. DECISION Eurest Support Services (ESS) protests the U.S. Marine Corps's (USMC) award of a contract to Sodexho Marriott Management (SMM) under request for proposals (RFP) Nos. M00027-00-R-0001 and M00027‑00‑R‑0002, for regional garrison food service. The protester challenges the evaluation of technical and cost proposals. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFPs provided for award of two primarily fixed-price incentive contracts for a base period of 5 years, with 3 option years, to provide regional garrison food service at 32 messhalls on the East Coast and 23 messhalls on the West Coast. USMC had previously contracted for full food service at 10 of the messhalls; under the solicitations, the number of full food service messhalls increased to 35. USMC had current contracts for mess attendant services at 29 of the messhalls; under the solicitations, mess attendant messhalls were reduced in number to 18 and will become management and mess attendant messhalls, with the contractor now also responsible for management of the messhalls. (Food preparation will continue to be performed by USMC cooks at the management and mess attendant messhalls.) The contractor also will be responsible for management and food preparation for several brig messhalls not previously contracted out. In addition, the solicitations provided for the contractor to assume responsibility for the procurement of food (the price of which was to be included in the fixed incentive price per meal) and (after a transition period) maintenance (on a fixed-price basis) and repair (on a time and materials (T&M) basis) of food preparation and serving equipment, previously the responsibility of the government. RFPs at C1.3; Agency Comments, June 22, 2001, Tab 52a. Further, 20 messhalls were set aside under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD), 41 U.S.C. S: 46‑48c, for JWOD organizations for the blind or other severely handicapped to operate as subcontractors. RFPs S: H.5(f). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the best value to the government. The solicitations provided for proposals to be evaluated based on four criteria: (1) price; (2) integrated organization and management, including subfactors for organization and management plan (including proposed staffing), advanced food technology plan, quality control plan, and phase‑in plan; (3) small business subcontracting plan; and (4) past performance. Price was the most important criterion and was equal in importance to the other criteria combined. Integrated organization and management was significantly more important than the small business subcontracting plan and past performance combined, while the small business subcontracting plan was significantly more important than past performance.