Weber Cafeteria Services, Inc., B-290085.2, June 17, 2002

B-290085.2 Jun 17, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested a Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BlA) contract award for food services, contending that (1) the award was unbalanced, (2) BIA misevaluated offerors' proposals, and (3) BIA's award decision was improper. GAO held that (1) there is no evidence that any of awardee's prices were so overstated as to create any concern of risk to the government; (2) the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria; and BIA was not required to give evaluation preference or additional credit for the protester's past performance as the incumbent; and (3) BIA reasonably determined that the awardee's proposal represented the best value to the government. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Weber Cafeteria Services, Inc., B-290085.2, June 17, 2002   DIGEST Attorneys   DECISION Weber Cafeteria Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Acores Foods, LLC, under request for proposals (RFP) No. RMK0E020012, issued by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), for food services at the BIA Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), Albuquerque, New Mexico. Weber, the incumbent contractor, contends that BIA misevaluated offerors' proposals and that the agency's award decision was improper. We deny the protest. The RFP, issued on November 20, 2001, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract for a base year, with four 1-year options, to provide a complete food service program for the students attending BIA-SIPI. The RFP notified offerors that the two evaluation factors for award, past performance and price, were equal in weight, and that award would be made to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. RFP amend. 2, Sec. 52.212-2. The RFP instructed offerors that the submission of past performance information was to include "recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items." Id. Sec. 52.212-1(b)(10). The RFP's price schedule required that offerors provide both unit and extended prices, in each performance period, for the base meal program, the Summer Upward Bound student program, catering services, and the "50/50 program." /1/ Four proposals, including those of Weber and Acores, were received by the RFP's closing date. Weber's proposal was rated "very good" under the past performance criterion at a proposed price of $5,939,743.55; Acores' proposal was rated "very good" under the past performance criterion at a proposed price of $5,855,235.05. /2/ Having found that Acores and Weber were equal in terms of past performance, and that Acores was the lowest-priced offeror, the agency determined that Acores' proposal offered the best value to the government. /3/ Agency Report at 1; Contracting Officer's Statement, Apr. 25, 2002, at 2. On February 21, 2002, BIA announced its intent to make contract award to Acores. This protest followed. Weber protests that the agency's decision to make award to Acores was improper. The protester contends that Acores' offer was unbalanced and should not be accepted for award. Weber also asserts that the agency's evaluation of proposals under the past performance factor was flawed, and BIA's selection decision was unreasonable. Weber also argues that the agency improperly calculated the protester's proposed price. Unbalanced Pricing Weber argues that Acores' offer was unbalanced and could not be accepted for award because its prices for the 50/50 program were improperly overstated. A price abstract provided to all offerors shows that Acores' prices for the 50/50 program were approximately twice that proposed by Weber (e.g., $18,990 for the awardee as compared to $8,862 for the protester for the base year). Agency Report, Tab K, Price Abstract. Weber alleges that Acores' overstated prices to the agency for the 50/50 program, together with the income to be generated from students under this contract line item, permitted Acores to understate its pricing for the much larger, base meal program. Unbalanced pricing exists where the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (typically achieved through underpricing of one or more other line items). See Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sec. 15.404-1(g)(1). While unbalanced pricing may increase risk to the government, agencies are not required to reject an offer solely because it is unbalanced. Id. Rather, where an unbalanced offer is received, the contracting officer is required to consider the risks to the government associated with the unbalanced pricing in making the award decision, including the risk that the unbalancing will result in unreasonably high prices for contract performance. FAR Sec.