The Staten Island Hotel, B-292893.3, August 6, 2004

B-292893.3 Aug 06, 2004 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Staten Island Hotel (SIH) 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. SIH challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. View Decision B-292893.3, The Staten Island Hotel, August 6, 2004 Decision Matter of: The Staten Island Hotel File: B-292893.3 Date: August 6, 2004 Louis Biancone, Esq., and Thomas B. Wilinsky, Esq., Biancone & Wilinsky, for the protester. Capt. Richard M. Sudder, Department of the Army, for the agency. Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and David Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Agency reasonably assigned protester's proposal no more than a satisfactory rating under past performance factor where record of protester's recent performance of incumbent contract, for meals, lodging and transportation for military applicants, indicated discrepancies with respect to matters relating to applicants' health and safety, failures to comply with specification requirements concerning the availability and selection of food for applicants, and failures to afford applicants the same level of service and quality of facilities offered to other guests. DECISION The Staten Island Hotel (SIH) 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. SIH challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals. 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 at16-18. The Army received 15 proposals in response to the solicitation, including those of SIH, HGI and Command Management Services (CMS) for the Wyndham Newark Airport Hotel (CMS/Wyndham). [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, SIH's proposal received an overall rating of marginal, with marginal ratings for quality control, facility quality, and past performance, and a satisfactory rating for transportation; 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; and CMS/Wyndham's proposal received an overall rating of excellent, with an excellent rating for each of the non-cost factors. Even though SIH offered the lowest evaluated price, in accordance with the RFP, SIH's proposal was not considered for award due to its marginal overall rating. [2] The agency instead determined that the proposal of CMS/Wyndham represented the best value, given its overall advantage under the non-cost factors, even though its evaluated price was higher than HGI's. First Contracting Officer's Determination, Jan. 27, 2004. Shortly after award to CMS on its CMS/Wyndham proposal, SIH filed an agency-level protest contesting the award. During the course of this protest it came to light that SIH possessed the independent government estimate (IGE), having been inadvertently given the IGE by a local MEPS employee. In response, the agency reopened discussions, furnishing each offeror with the IGE and an opportunity to submit revised technical and cost proposals by March 8, 2004. The agency also assigned a new contracting officer to this procurement. HGI furnished additional technical information in its revised proposal.