Rice Services, Inc.; Watson Services, Inc., B-293861; B-293861.2; B-293861.3; B-293861.4, June 15, 2004

Rice Services, Inc.; Watson Services, Inc., B-293861; B-293861.2; B-293861.3; B-293861.4, June 15, 2004 TITLE: Rice Services, Inc.; Watson Services, Inc., B-293861; B-293861.2; B-293861.3; B-293861.4, June 15, 2004 BNUMBER: B-293861; B-293861.2; B-293861.3; B-293861.4 DATE: June 15, 2004 ********************************************************************** Decision Matter of: Rice Services, Inc.; Watson Services, Inc. File: B-293861; B-293861.2; B-293861.3; B-293861.4 Date: June 15, 2004 Keith L. Baker, Esq., and William T. Welch, Esq., Barton, Baker, McMahon, Hildebrant & Tolle, for Rice Services, Inc., and Philip M. Dearborn, Esq., and JenniferA M. Morrison, Esq., Piliero, Mazza & Pargament, for Watson Services, Inc., the protesters. Audrey Roh, Esq., Department of Homeland Security-United States Coast Guard, for the agency. John L. Formica, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest against cancellation of solicitation is denied where agency reasonably determined that solicitation did not adequately set forth the agency's needs. DECISION Rice Services, Inc. and Watson Services, Inc. protest the cancellation of request for proposals (RFP) No. DTCG84-03-R-AA1049, issued by the United States Coast Guard for full food services at the Coast Guard Academy. We deny the protests. The RFP, issued as a set-aside for Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) concerns, contemplated the award of a fixed-price contract, for a base period of 1 year, with four 1-year options and five additional award term* years, to provide all food, personnel, management, supervision, materials and supplies necessary for full food services at the Coast Guard Academy. Among other things, the contractor will be required to manage the dining facilities, stock, replenish, cook and serve food, clean the facilities, equipment and utensils, bus tables, and perform cashier services. RFP, Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 5. Award was to be made to the offeror submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value to the government based upon the evaluation factors of past performance, technical approach, management approach, and price. [1] Past performance and technical approach were equal in importance and most important,* while management approach and price were equal in importance and less important* than the past performance and technical approach factors. The RFP provided for the submission of written proposals as well as oral presentations, and informed offerors that the agency intended to make award without discussions. The Coast Guard received proposals from Wolf Management Services, Inc., Rice, and Watson, by the solicitation's closing time. Based on the evaluation of the written proposals and oral presentations, Wolf's proposal was evaluated as excellent/low performance risk* under the past performance factor, and good+* under both the technical approach and management approach factors, at a proposed price of $52,063,800; Watson's proposal was evaluated as excellent/low performance risk* under the past performance factor, marginal* under the technical approach factor, and good* under the management approach factor, at a proposed price of $55,079,563; and Rice's proposal was evaluated as adequate/moderate performance risk* under the past performance factor, good* under the technical approach factor, and marginal* under the management approach factor, at an evaluated price of $51,453,881. The source selection authority (SSA) determined that Wolf's proposal represented the best value to the agency. Source Selection Statement at 1-4. Upon receipt of the required preaward notice that Wolf was the apparent successful offeror, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) S 15.503(a)(2)(C), both Rice and Watson filed protests with the agency challenging the eligibility of Wolf for award. In accordance with FAR S 19.306, the protests were forwarded to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which ultimately determined that Wolf does not qualify as a HUBZone [small business concern] for this procurement.* SBA Decision, Feb. 3, 2004. The Coast Guard then reviewed the evaluations of Watson's and Rice's proposals and determined that cancellation of the solicitation would be appropriate. In this regard, the agency noted that Watson's proposal had been evaluated as marginal* under the technical approach factor because it did not clearly meet some specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.* Justification for Cancellation at 2.