Command Management Services, Inc, B-292893.2, June 30, 2004

B-292893.2 Jun 30, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to the Hilton Garden Inn (HGI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK21-03-R-0036, for meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in New York City, New York. CMS primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal in a number of areas. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292893.2, Command Management Services, Inc, June 30, 2004 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. Matter of: Command Management Services, Inc File: B-292893.2 Date: June 30, 2004 Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., Mark R. Mann, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq., Grayson, Kubli & Hoffman, for the protester. Capt. Richard M. Sudder II, Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against evaluation of revised proposals, undertaken after negotiations were opened as part of corrective action following initial award to protester, is denied where agency reasonably determined that as a result of changes in the current awardee's revised proposal, the proposal warranted a higher rating than it received in the first evaluation. DECISION Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to the Hilton Garden Inn (HGI), under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABK21-03-R-0036, for meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in New York City, New York. CMS primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated the awardee's proposal in a number of areas. We deny the protest. The RFP, a commercial acquisition using a combination of [Federal Acquisition Regulation parts] 12 & 15, provided for award of a fixed-price requirements contract, for a base period with four 1year option periods, to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the government. Amend. 2. Determination of the most advantageous proposal was to be based on fiveevaluation factors: (1)facility quality, including subfactors for sanitation and cleanliness, room condition, meals, security, special features, and facility location; (2) transportation; (3) quality control; (4) past performance; and (5)price. Among the non-cost factors, facility quality was more important than transportation, which was more important than past performance, which was as important as quality control. The RFP further provided that the [n]oncost factors are more important than cost or price. RFP at 16-18. The Army received 15 proposals in response to the solicitation, including those of CMS for the Wyndham Newark Airport Hotel (CMS/Wyndham) and HGI. [1] These proposals were evaluated by a three-member team, which then conducted a videotaped, on-site inspection of each offeror's lodging and dining facilities to verify the information in the offeror's proposal. Based on the results of the inspection and the evaluation of the proposals, CMS/Wyndham's proposal received an overall rating of excellent, with an excellent rating for each of the non-cost factors, while HGI's received an overall rating of satisfactory, with satisfactory ratings for facility quality and quality control and excellent ratings for transportation and past performance. Although the evaluated price of CMS/Wyndham's proposal ($10,971,689) was higher than HGI's [DELETED], the agency determined that given its overall advantage under the noncost factors, the CMS/Wyndham proposal represented the best value. First Contracting Officer's Determination, Jan. 27, 2004. Shortly after award to CMS on its CMS/Wyndham proposal, another firm filed an agency-level protest contesting the award. During the course of this protest it came to light that the agency-level protester possessed the independent government estimate (IGE), having been inadvertently given the IGE by a local MEPS employee. In addition, the agency concluded after a review of the past performance evaluation that the rating given the agency-level protester in this regard was unjustified. In response, the agency reopened discussions, furnishing each offeror with the IGE and an opportunity to submit revised technical and cost proposals. The agency also assigned a new contracting officer to this procurement. CMS/Wyndham submitted price and technical changes, and was again rated excellent, at a revised price of [DELETED].