Centro Management, Inc., B-286935; B-286935.2, February 26, 2001

Centro Management, Inc., B-286935; B-286935.2, February 26, 2001 TITLE: Centro Management, Inc., B-286935; B-286935.2, February 26, 2001 BNUMBER: B-286935; B-286935.2 DATE: February 26, 2001 ********************************************************************** Centro Management, Inc., B-286935; B-286935.2, February 26, 2001 Decision Matter of: Centro Management, Inc. File: B-286935; B-286935.2 Date: February 26, 2001 Lynn Hawkins Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for the protester. Col. Michael R. Neds and Maj. John Alumbaugh, Department of the Army, for the agency. Paul I. Lieberman, Esq., and Michael R. Golden, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Solicitation provision setting forth applicability of Randolph-Sheppard Act preference (establishing priority for the blind in the award of contract for cafeteria services) does not establish a requirement that, in addition to being included in the competitive range, in order to receive the statutory selection preference a proposal submitted by a state licensing agency for the blind must be evaluated as virtually equal in price and technical capability to the other competitive range proposals. DECISION Centro Management, Inc. protests the exclusion of its proposal from the competitive range under request for proposals (RFP) No. DAKF11-99-R-1005, issued by the Department of the Army for food services at Fort Polk, and the award of a contract for these services to Louisiana Rehabilitation Services (LRS), a state licensing agency for the blind (SLA). Centro, the incumbent contractor, contends that its proposal was misevaluated and therefore incorrectly excluded from the competitive range, and that the award to LRS is improper because it was based on the agency's misapplication of the RFP provision advising that the solicitation is subject to the exercise of a selection preference under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. sect. 107-107f (1994) (the Act). We deny the protest. It is undisputed that this procurement is for cafeteria services that qualify for application of the selection preference afforded by the Act. Section M.6(a) of the RFP notifies offerors that the solicitation is subject to the Act, and that Army policy interprets the Act to provide a "selection preference to qualified nominees of [SLAs] who represent clients seeking Defense contracts for so-called ‘military cafeteria-style food operations.'" The RFP goes on to state that "[a]pplication of this preference may entitle a qualifying offeror, whose evaluated proposal is included in the agency's competitive range determination, to receive award without further consideration of other equally competitive proposals." RFP sect. M.6(a), (b). Five proposals were received by the August 14, 2000 closing date, including Centro's and one submitted by LRS as the SLA representing a qualified nominee joint venture consisting of Breaud Services Inc., a licensed blind vendor, and Cantu Services Inc. Based on its evaluation of the initial proposals, the agency established a competitive range consisting of the LRS proposal and a proposal submitted by KCA Corporation. Centro's proposal was excluded from the competitive range even though it was recognized as offering the lowest price, on the basis that the proposal demonstrated a lack of understanding of the requirement and contained material deficiencies that would require a major or total rewrite to be made competitive. Agency Report (AR), Tab 10, Pre-Negotiation Objective Memorandum, Oct. 18, 2000, at 12-13; AR, Tab 11, Determination of Competitive Range, at 5-6. Because the SLA proposal was included in the competitive range, after conducting discussions the Army determined to make award to the SLA on the basis that it qualified for preference under the Act. AR at 4. After receiving its debriefing, Centro timely filed this protest. Centro's primary complaint is that the selection of LRS reflects a misapplication by the agency of the preference as set forth in the RFP. In Centro's view, had its proposal been properly evaluated, it would have been included in the competitive range with a higher technical rating than LRS's proposal, and at a significantly lower price. [1] Centro contends that the agency could not properly have selected LRS for award based on the RFP's preference language because LRS's higher-priced proposal could not reasonably have been evaluated as substantially equal to Centro's. As a threshold matter, Centro contends that the agency could not properly have included LRS's proposal in the competitive range or credited the proposal with the statutory preference because, in Centro's view, the SLA nominee consists of a joint venture which does not qualify for preference under the Act. The Act vests authority for administering and overseeing its requirements solely with the Secretary of Education, 20 U.S.C. sect. 107a (1994).