Holiday Inn-Laurel, B-290364, June 10, 2002

B-290364 Jun 10, 2002 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A firm protested an Army contract award for meals, lodging, and transportation, contending that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal. GAO held that the Army's was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria. Accordingly, the protest was denied. View Decision Holiday Inn-Laurel, B-290364, June 10, 2002 * REDACTION DECISION DIGEST Attorneys DECISION Holiday Inn-Laurel (HIL) protests the award of a contract to Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) by the Department of the Army's Directorate of Contracting, Fort Knox, Kentucky, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT23-02-R-0005, issued to procure meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in Baltimore, Maryland. HIL primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated proposals against unstated evaluation criteria. We deny the protest. The RFP 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. 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 option periods, to the offeror whose proposal is considered most advantageous to the government. The RFP requires offerors to submit separate technical/quality and price proposals. Offerors are advised that award will be made, without conducting discussions, to the firm whose proposal represents the best value to the government, based on the following evaluation factors: facility quality, transportation, quality control, past performance, and price. The facility quality factor is comprised of six subfactors: sanitation and cleanliness, room condition, meals, security, special features, and facility location. Among the non-cost factors, facility quality is more important than transportation, which is more important than past performance, which is as important as quality control. The non-price factors are more important than price. The Army received 12 proposals in response to the solicitation, including those of HIL and CMS, using Comfort Inn BWI. /1/ These proposals were evaluated by a three-member team, which then conducted a videotaped inspection of each offeror's lodging and dining facilities. The contracting officer explains that inspection teams spend no more than 45 minutes at each location to verify information that was proposed by the properties and, among other things, ask to see one or two guest rooms planned for use by the applicants, the kitchen and dining room, and vehicles that will be used for transporting applicants. Contracting Officer'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 inspection 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. This information, together with the selection decision, was memorialized in a document prepared by the contracting officer. For HIL, the incumbent contractor, the evaluation narrative focused mostly on the results of the inspection. The evaluation team had "big concerns" with housekeeping in the rooms and the overall cleanliness of the kitchen, which the contracting officer stated had been a concern for a while. The evaluation team found that "[a]ll mattress covers contained hair and stains and underwear was found between a mattress." Source Selection Statement at 3. In addition, surveys on file regarding the quality of the food and the hotel's standards showed that they were not what MEPS was looking for using best value procedures. The contracting officer was also concerned that the only security cameras on the premises monitored the section of the hotel that was not used to house applicants. Because the property failed to improve its housekeeping and kitchen cleanliness, lacked security surrounding the area housing applicants, and did not have good quality assurance and past performance ratings, the proposal was rated marginal. Id. at 3. HIL's overall rating of marginal made it the 10th highest-rated proposal of the twelve.