B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8, Incident Catering Services, LLC, September 7, 2005

B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8, Incident Catering Services, LLC, September 7, 2005 TITLE: B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8, Incident Catering Services, LLC, September 7, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8 DATE: September 7, 2005 ************************************************************************************************** B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8, Incident Catering Services, LLC, September 7, 2005 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. Decision Matter of: Incident Catering Services, LLC File: B-296435.2; B-296435.3; B-296435.7; B-296435.8 Date: September 7, 2005 Ronald S. Perlman, Esq., and Michael B. Tuite, Esq., Buchanan Ingersoll PC, for the protester. David G. Brown, Esq., Merrill O'Sullivan, LLP, for North Slope Catering, LLC; Susan M. Stewart, Stewart's Firefighter Food Catering, Inc.; and Harold M. Nelson, Big Sky Mobile Catering, intervenors. Byron W. Waters, Esq., Department of Agriculture, for the agency. Louis A. Chiarella, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest that agency unreasonably evaluated the protester's technical proposal is denied where the record shows that the agency's evaluation of proposals was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria; protester's disagreement with agency's evaluation is insufficient to show it was unreasonable. 2. Protest alleging that, in its evaluation of the protester's proposal, the agency unreasonably ignored information that was "close at hand" (but not contained in the protester's proposal) is denied where the information in question bears on whether the protester's proposed equipment satisfied the technical requirements of the solicitation, and thus by nature could vary in response to the individual solicitation. 3. Protest that agency unreasonably decided not to hold discussions with offerors is denied given that the contracting officer has broad discretion in deciding whether to hold discussions and nothing in the record indicates that the contracting officer abused her discretion in determining not to conduct discussions. DECISION Incident Catering Services, LLC (ICS) protests its nonselection for contract award under request for proposals (RFP) No. 49-05-07, issued by the National Interagency Fire Center, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, for mobile food services in various locations; for certain locations, the Forest Service awarded contracts to offerors other than ICS and, for other locations, elected not to make contract award. ICS argues that the agency's evaluation of its proposal and decision not to conduct discussions were improper. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 9, 2005, contemplated multiple awards of fixed-price and cost-reimbursement requirements contracts for a base year and four 1-year options. The contractors would be required to provide hot and cold meals and supplemental items at 27 field locations (referred to as designated dispatch points, or DDPs) during wildland fires and other types of activities throughout the contiguous western United States and Alaska. RFP sect. C.1, at 7. The RFP permitted offerors to submit proposals for multiple DDPs, but contemplated the award of one contract for each location. In addition to cost/price, the solicitation identified the following technical evaluation factors, in descending order of importance: proposed equipment; past performance; experience; and technical approach. The RFP informed offerors that the technical factors, when combined, were approximately equal in importance to cost or price. Contract awards were to be made to the offerors submitting the proposals determined to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and to be the most advantageous (i.e., "best value") to the government. Relevant to the protest here, the RFP also stated that contract awards might be made without discussions, and that the agency might reject any or all offers and not award all DDP locations if doing so were determined to be in the government's best interest. RFP sect. M.2, at 105. The RFP included detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and requested that the offerors' proposals consist of two parts--a technical part and a business/cost part. Offerors were instructed that the technical proposals would be used to determine, among other things, whether the proposals met the requirements of the RFP.