B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007

B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007 TITLE: B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007 BNUMBER: B-310261; B-310261.2 DATE: December 14, 2007 ************************************************************************** B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007 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: Command Management Services, Inc. File: B-310261; B-310261.2 Date: December 14, 2007 Alan M. Grayson Esq., Victor Kubli, Esq., and Paula K. Goldman, Esq., Grayson & Kubli, PC, for the protester. Thomas P. Sayer, Jr., Esq., for LAX Hospitality, LP, an intervenor. Maj. Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the agency. Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of technical proposals is denied where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the evaluation criteria. 2. Agency reasonably found that discrepancy in name of entity appearing in the proposal was a mere clerical error where the differences in the name from the entity to which award was made are minor and the data universal numbering system number and address matched that of the entity which received the award. DECISION Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) protests the award of a contract to LAX Hospitality, LP by the Department of the Army, under request for proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-07-R-0036, for meals and lodging for armed forces applicants at the Los Angeles Military Entrance Processing Station. We deny the protest. The RFP was issued on April 28, 2007 as a commercial item acquisition. It sought proposals for the furnishing of facilities, furniture, equipment, supplies, management, supervision and labor to provide lodging accommodations, meal services and transportation services for armed forces and/or government agency applicant processing. The solicitation contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base year with four 1-year options. Award was to be made on a "best value" basis considering the evaluation factors identified in the RFP. The RFP provided that proposals would be evaluated considering cost/price and the following non-cost factors listed in descending order of importance: facility quality/quality control, past performance, and transportation. The facility quality/quality control factor had seven equally important subfactors: sanitation and cleanliness, room/facility condition, meals, security, special features, facility location, and quality control. The combined weight of the non-cost factors was significantly more important than cost/price. Six proposals, including LAX's and CMS's, were received in response to the solicitation, but two were withdrawn. The remaining four written proposals were reviewed by the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which then conducted an on-site visit of each offered facility on August 7th and 8th. Agency Report (AR) at 4. Based on its evaluation of the written proposals and the on-site visits, the SSEB produced written narratives that described the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal under each evaluation factor and subfactor, and assigned one of the following adjectival ratings: Excellent: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate excellent understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths, with few or no weaknesses, that will significantly benefit the Government. On site evaluation confirms written proposal. Good: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government. Any weaknesses can be minimized with normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring. Satisfactory: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate minimal understanding of requirements and approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable solution, but has few strengths. Any weaknesses can be minimized, but confirms the necessity of special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring necessary to minimize difficulties. RFP at 13.[1] LAX's and CMS's proposals both received an overall technical evaluation rating of excellent; the other two proposals received lower ratings.