Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001

B-288280 Oct 10, 2001 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army contract award for the procurement of meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station in Butte, Montana, contending that (1) the Army either unreasonably evaluated its excellent past performance or improperly undervalued the past performance evaluation factor, (2) under the circumstances of the procurement, the Army wrongly withheld information and (3) the "best value" decision was improper. GAO held that, (1) the Army's failure to disclose the relative weight of evaluation factors was unreasonable because basic fairness dictated disclosure of the relative weights assessed, (2) the Army's consideration of past performance was discretionary and not mandatory, and (3) where an agency requests detailed written proposals, a selection is improper where it lacks a rationale which sets forth a basis for the tradeoffs made. Accordingly, the protest was sustained and GAO recommended that the Army, upon conclusion of a new evaluation, make a new decision, taking care to explain any benefits associated with any tradeoff decision, and that the protester be reimbursed the reasonable costs of filing and pursuing its protest, including reasonable attorney's fees. View Decision Finlen Complex, Inc., B-288280, October 10, 2001 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Finlen Complex, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the Best Western Butte Plaza Inn by the Department of the Army's Directorate of Contracting, Fort Knox, Kentucky, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT23-01-R-0010, issued to procure meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Butte, Montana. Finlen argues that the agency either unreasonably evaluated its excellent past performance, or improperly undervalued the past performance evaluation factor. Finlen also contends that, under the circumstances of this procurement, the agency wrongly withheld the relative weight of the evaluation factors from the offerors, and specifically, wrongly withheld the fact that the past performance factor was worth only 5 percent of the total weight of evaluation factors. Finally, Finlen contends that the "best value" decision here was improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here -- issued to implement a procurement described on the solicitation's cover sheet as a "commercial acquisition, using simplified acquisition procedures" -- anticipated award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity requirements contract, for a base period followed by four 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal was considered most advantageous to the government. RFP at 28. The RFP advised that offers would "be evaluated on facility quality, food and transportation proposal, facility location, quality control, past performance and price factors." Id. The RFP also advised that the "technical/quality factors [would be] more important than cost or price." Id. Otherwise, the RFP was silent on the relative weight of the non-price evaluation factors. The RFP was also silent on the role in the selection decision of any non-price evaluation factor other than past performance. As for the role of past performance, the solicitation set forth considerable detail, including how the agency would use the past performance assessment, and what it would consider. (Although not disclosed to potential offerors, the relative weights set for this procurement were: facility quality, 30 percent; food and transportation, 25 percent; facility location, 20 percent; quality control, 20 percent; and past performance, 5 percent. Agency Report (AR), Tab G.) In response, the agency received six proposals, including those of Finlen and Best Western. Finlen, the incumbent contractor for these services, proposed its hotel, built in 1924, and located in downtown Butte's National Historical Landmark District, approximately two blocks from the MEPS facility. Best Western's proposal identified its newer hotel -- assessed by one of the evaluators as approximately 30 years old -- located approximately three miles from the MEPS facility. AR, Tab H. After determining that two of the proposals were unacceptable, a three-member technical evaluation team conducted a detailed evaluation of the remaining four proposals, and inspected each offeror's lodging and dining facilities. The results of their evaluation and inspection are set forth on more than 85 pages of handwritten notes and completed forms included in the agency report. AR, Tabs I-J. Two of the three members of the technical evaluation team assigned point scores to the proposals; the third evaluator did not score the proposals. The two evaluators who scored proposals used different scales -- one rated proposals on a 100-point scale, the other used a 115-point scale.