B-296435.4; B-296435.9, R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering, September 15, 2005

B-296435.4; B-296435.9, R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering, September 15, 2005 TITLE: B-296435.4; B-296435.9, R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering, September 15, 2005 BNUMBER: B-296435.4; B-296435.9 DATE: September 15, 2005 ********************************************************************************************* B-296435.4; B-296435.9, R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering, September 15, 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: R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering File: B-296435.4; B-296435.9 Date: September 15, 2005 John Lukjanowicz, Esq., and B. Michael Schestopol, Esq., Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker LLP, for the protester. 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 Agency unreasonably determined that the protester's prices were not fair and reasonable where the agency's price evaluation considered only offerors' unit prices and, in so doing, failed to provide a reasonable basis for comparing the relative costs to the government of offerors' competing proposals. DECISION R&G Food Service, Inc., d/b/a Port-A-Pit Catering (Port-A-Pit) 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 Port-A-Pit and, for other locations, elected not to make contract award. Port-A-Pit argues that the agency's evaluation of proposals, including the evaluation of its price proposal, was improper. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND The RFP, issued on February 9, 2005, contemplated multiple awards of fixed-price requirements contracts for a base year and four 1-year options. The successful contractors under the RFP would be required to provide hot and cold meals and various 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 by means of mobile food service units (MFSU). The RFP permitted offerors to propose for multiple DDPs, but contemplated the award of one contract for each location. The solicitation required offerors to submit unit prices for meal services (e.g., breakfast, sack lunch, dinner), MFSU mileage, and handwashing units, which would form the basis of a requirements-type contract, as well as unit prices for additional refrigeration storage space, additional tents and seating, and supplemental food and beverage items, which would form the basis of a blanket purchase agreement (BPA). RFP sect. B, at 1-4. In addition to 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 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. The RFP also stated that the Forest Service 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 contained detailed instructions for the preparation of proposals, and required that the offerors' proposals consist of two parts--a technical proposal and a business/price proposal. Offerors were instructed that the technical proposals would be used to determine, among other things, whether the proposals met the requirements of the RFP. The solicitation also established minimum equipment requirements for an MFSU, and required offerors to complete an equipment requirements checklist for each unit offered. RFP sect. C.3, at 21-27, exh. M.2, at 112-18. The RFP stated that the equipment requirements would be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, and that "any unit that fails to meet any of these minimum requirements will be unacceptable and may not be considered any further." Id. at 112. With regard to an offeror's proposed price, the solicitation stated that the offeror's business/price proposal would be evaluated to determine the reasonableness of the offeror's price for the effort proposed. Id.