Cantu Services, Inc., B-289666.2; B-289666.3, November 1, 2002

Cantu Services, Inc., B-289666.2; B-289666.3, November 1, 2002 TITLE: Cantu Services, Inc., B-289666.2; B-289666.3, November 1, 2002 BNUMBER: B-289666.2; B-289666.3 DATE: November 1, 2002 ********************************************************************** Cantu Services, Inc., B-289666.2; B-289666.3, November 1, 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: Cantu Services, Inc. File: B-289666.2; B-289666.3 Date: November 1, 2002 Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey Law Office, for the protester. Lynn H. Patton, Esq., Ott & Purdy, for South Carolina Commission for the Blind, an intervenor. Maj. Art J. Coulter, 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 Under solicitation subject to Randolph-Sheppard Act preference (establishing priority for the blind in the award of contract for cafeteria services), agency reasonably determined to include proposal by state licensing agency for the blind (SLA) in the competitive range where it was one of two proposals submitted, and received a higher technical evaluation, notwithstanding the fact that the SLA's proposal's most probable cost was higher. DECISION Cantu Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, a state licensing agency for the blind (SLA), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT47-01-R-0001 issued by the Department of the Army for food services at Fort Jackson. Cantu asserts that the SLA's proposed cost was not reasonable and that the SLA's proposal was improperly included in the competitive range. We deny the protest. The RFP advised that this procurement would be conducted pursuant to the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA), which establishes priority for blind persons recognized and represented by SLAs, in the award of contracts for, among other things, the operation of cafeterias in federal facilities. 20 U.S.C. S: 107b (2000); 34 C.F.R. S: 395.33(a) (2002). Under Department of Defense regulations, if a designated SLA submits an offer found to be within the competitive range, award must be made to the SLA absent a high-level determination by the agency and agreement by the Secretary of Education that, as applicable here, the SLA does not have the capacity to operate a cafeteria in such a manner as to provide food service at a cost and quality comparable to that available from other cafeteria services providers. 32 C.F.R. S: 260.3(g)(1)(3) (2002). Here, the solicitation specifies that the applicable RSA priority requires that award be made to an SLA if its proposal is included in the competitive range, absent such a high-level agency determination and approval by the Secretary of Education. RFP amend. 3, at 9-10. While Cantu has propounded a number of variations on its argument, the gravamen of Cantu's protest is that the SLA's proposal should not have been included in the competitive range because its proposed cost is unreasonably high in comparison with Cantu's proposed cost. The RFP provided for the award of a cost-plus-award-fee contract on the basis of a *best value* determination under five specified technical evaluation factors which, in combination, were significantly more important than cost. Id. at 8-9.[1] Cantu and the SLA were the only offerors that submitted proposals. The SLA's proposal received a rating of *excellent* under management and food production, the most important technical factor, versus Cantu's rating of *good.* The SLA's proposal received ratings of *good* under the other four factors; Cantu's proposal received ratings of *good* on those factors, with the exception of an *excellent* rating under the past performance factor, which was significantly less important than the management and food production factor. The SLA's proposal also received substantially more subfactor ratings of *excellent* than the Cantu proposal. The contracting officer concluded that while both technical proposals received overall ratings of *good,* the SLA's higher rating of *excellent* under the significantly most important evaluation factor represented a technical advantage that caused him to assess the proposal as clearly superior to Cantu's proposal. Agency Report (AR) at 2. Cantu's final proposed cost was $49,632,275 and the SLA's final proposed cost was $57,734,567. The independent government cost estimate was $61,560,686. As provided for by the RFP, the agency performed most probable cost (MPC) evaluations, which resulted in an MPC of $60,912,379 for Cantu, and an MPC of $63,411,012 for the SLA. AR at 1.