Hilton Knoxville, B-289478, February 26, 2002

B-289478 Feb 26, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Protester's challenge to the evaluation of its proposal is denied where the record shows that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. 2. Contention that an agency's price/technical tradeoff decision was an abuse of discretion is denied where the record shows that the agency was aware of the differences between the proposed approaches of the awardee and the protester and reasonably concluded that the awardee's higher-priced proposal offered a better value to the government than the protester's proposal. HK argues that the award decision here was improper because the on-site inspection of its hotel was unreasonable. The agency is biased in favor of CMS. View Decision Hilton Knoxville, B-289478, February 26, 2002 DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Hilton Knoxville (HK) protests the award of a contract to Command Management Services, Inc. by the Department of the Army's Directorate of Contracting, Fort Knox, Kentucky, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT23-01-R-1016, issued to procure meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Knoxville, Tennessee. HK argues that the award decision here was improper because the on-site inspection of its hotel was unreasonable, the agency failed to consider the risk associated with award to CMS, the agency is biased in favor of CMS, and the agency abused its discretion when it concluded that CMS's higher-priced proposal represented the "best value" to the government. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP here is a standard solicitation developed by the Directorate of Contracting for procuring meals and lodging for armed forces applicants arriving at the Army's 65 MEPS locations. Contracting Officer's (CO) Statement at 1. These MEPS RFPs are issued as commercial acquisitions using simplified acquisition procedures, and anticipate award of a fixed-price, indefinite-quantity requirements contract, for a base period followed by four 1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal is considered most advantageous to the government. RFP amend. 2, attach. 1, at 3. The RFP requires that offerors submit a technical/quality proposal as well as a separate cost/price proposal. Id. at 1-2. To assess proposals, the RFP advises that offers will be evaluated on five factors: facility quality, transportation, quality control, past performance and price. Id. at 3. The RFP also advises that the non-cost factors are more important than price, and that among these non-cost factors facility quality is more important than transportation, which is more important than past performance or quality control, which are equal in weight. Id. In response, the agency received 11 proposals, including those of HK and CMS; 2 of the proposals were withdrawn before the evaluation. The remaining nine proposals were evaluated by a three-member team, which then inspected each offeror's lodging and dining facilities. This inspection was videotaped by a fourth person from the MEPS. The CO explained that the inspections lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes per hotel, and that the same inspection procedure was used for each visit. Specifically, the evaluators would ask to see a guest room planned for use by the MEPS applicants, the kitchen, the dining room, any vehicles to be used to transport the applicants, and anything else the hotel staff would like to show the team. CO's Statement at 2. At the conclusion of the inspection, the evaluation panel prepared a narrative assessment and overall adjectival consensus rating for each offeror based on the results of the investigation and on the panel's review of the proposal. The adjectival ratings used here--excellent, good, satisfactory, marginal, and unsatisfactory--were identified and defined in the solicitation. RFP at 30. This information, together with the selection decision, was memorialized in a document prepared by the CO. For HK, the evaluation narrative focused mostly on the results of the inspection, noting the hotel's "nice, large lobby" and convenient location, but also noting several "deficiencies." CO Findings, Nov. 30, 2001, at 2. For example, the narrative noted that the inspectors saw no sign of security during their visit. With respect to the kitchen, the evaluators noted a bad odor, outdated milk in the refrigerator, uncovered food, and two appliances plugged into one socket; with respect to the guest room, they noted that the bathtub was chipped and did not have safety strips, the bathroom exhaust fan was dirty, the mattress was stained, and three items were plugged into one outlet.