J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.11; B-285882.12, October 23, 2002

J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.11; B-285882.12, October 23, 2002 TITLE: J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.11; B-285882.12, October 23, 2002 BNUMBER: B-285882.11; B-285882.12 DATE: October 23, 2002 ********************************************************************** J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.11; B-285882.12, October 23, 2002 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: J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc. File: B-285882.11; B-285882.12 Date: October 23, 2002 Daniel S. Koch, Esq., Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, for the protester. Thomas J. Madden, Esq., Lars E. Anderson, Esq., John J. Pavlick, Jr., Esq., and Rebecca E. Pearson, Esq., Venable, Baetjer & Howard, for Sodexho Management, Inc., an intervenor. Julius Rothlein, Esq., 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 Agency's new price realism determination was consistent with limitation on reopened discussions (which essentially restricted changes to price proposals) where, although it was based on staffing not clearly indicated in awardee's prior technical proposal, that staffing level was reflected in prior price proposal. DECISION J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc. (JWH) protests the U.S. Marine Corps's (USMC) award of a contract to Sodexho Management, Inc. (SMI) under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00027‑00‑R‑0002, for food services. JWH challenges the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP provided for award of a primarily fixed-price incentive contract for a base period of 5 years, with 3 option years, to provide regional garrison food service at 23 messhalls on the West Coast. (Another RFP, No. M00027‑00‑R‑0001, provided for award of a similar contract for 32 messhalls on the East Coast.) Under the solicitation, the contractor would provide full food service at 13 of the 23 West Coast messhalls, and management and mess attendant services (with food preparation performed by USMC cooks) at 10 of the messhalls. In addition, the contractor would 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 basis) of food preparation and serving equipment. Further, seven messhalls were set aside under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD), 41 U.S.C. S: 46‑48c (2000), for performance by JWOD organizations for the blind or other severely handicapped as subcontractors. RFP S: H.5(f). Award was to be made to the offeror whose proposal represented the *best value* to the government based on four evaluation factors: (1) price; (2) integrated organization and management, including subfactors for organization and management plan, 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. With respect to price, the solicitation provided for an evaluation *to determine that the price . . . is realistic for the work to be performed; i.e., it reflects a clear understanding of the requirement and is consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal.* RFP S: M.3.4.1. (The solicitation indicated that, in addition to consideration under the price criterion, results of the price realism analysis may be used in making the performance risk assessment and responsibility determination. Id.) The solicitations specified that the price realism evaluation would include consideration of the completeness (with respect to required pricing information), reasonableness and realism of the proposed prices. Four offerors submitted proposals. SMI's, JWH's and a third offeror's (Eurest Support Services (ESS)) proposals were included in the competitive range. After conducting written and oral discussions, USMC requested final proposal revisions (first FPRs). Based on its evaluation of the resulting first FPRs, the agency concluded that SMI's proposal represented the best value and therefore made award to SMI. (SMI also received the award under the East Coast solicitation.) JWH protested the award; we denied that protest. J.W.