AMG Company, Inc.

B-415067.2 Jan 29, 2018 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AMG Company, Inc., of Santa Clemente, California, protests the award of a contract to Southwest Business Development by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00812 for meal services. AMG challenges the agency's corrective action and the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  AMG Company, Inc. File:  B-415067.2 Date:  January 29, 2018 Frank V. Reilly, Esq., Frank V. Reilly Attorney at Law, for the protester. Brian A. Quint, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Robert T. Wu, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest that the agency’s evaluation of proposals after taking corrective action was unreasonable is denied where the record shows the evaluation was reasonable and in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. DECISION AMG Company, Inc., of Santa Clemente, California, protests the award of a contract to Southwest Business Development by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) under request for quotations (RFQ) No. A17PS00812 for meal services.  AMG challenges the agency’s corrective action and the evaluation of proposals. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The RFQ, issued on June 19, 2017, as an Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise set-aside, sought quotations from small business Indian economic enterprises for the provision of meal services at the Sherman Indian High School, located in Riverside, California, which is operated by the BIA’s Bureau of Indian Education.[1]  Agency Report (AR), Tab 3, RFQ, at 1, 8.  The RFQ contemplated the award of one contract including a base year and four option years to provide students three meals per day and snacks, seven days per week during the academic school year.  Id. at 8.  Quotations were to be evaluated on a best-value tradeoff basis considering technical, past performance and price.  Id. at 54-55.  The RFQ did not weight either of the non-price factors, and provided that technical and past performance, when combined, were equal to price.  Id. at 55.  Price was to be evaluated based on total price and the government reserved the right to evaluate option prices for balance.  Id.  The technical proposal was to include a vendor’s plan for compliance with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Breakfast and Lunch Reimbursement Program (BLRP) requirements and sample six-week menus for breakfast, lunch, afternoon supplements, dinner and special meals.  Id. at 54.  Emphasis was to be placed on the vendor’s procedure to ensure that the school would be in compliance to qualify for meal reimbursement under the BLRP.  Id. Three quotations were received by the due date.  Contracting Officer Statement (COS) at 2.  After an evaluation of proposals, the agency decided to award a contract to Southwest, which AMG protested to our Office on August 10, 2017.  Id.  On September 6, 2017, the agency advised our Office of its intent to take corrective action.  Specifically, the agency notified our Office that it intended to reevaluate quotations and make a new source selection decision.  As a result of the agency’s corrective action, we dismissed that protest as academic.  See AMG Company, Inc., B-415067.1, Sept. 18, 2017 (unpublished decision). As part of the corrective action, the agency conducted a reevaluation of quotations.  In conducting the reevaluation, the agency revised its evaluation methodology from a point-based system, to an adjectival rating system.  COS at 9-12.  The relevant results of the reevaluation were as follows:   AMG Southwest Technical Unsatisfactory Very Good Past Performance Neutral Acceptable Price $5,418,703 $5,587,805 AR, Tab 9, Source Selection Memorandum, at 3.  The record shows that the unsatisfactory rating assigned to AMG under the technical factor was based on the assignment of various significant weaknesses and deficiencies by the evaluators.  AR, Tab 6, Technical Proposal Reevaluations, at 1-6.  However, the source selection authority (SSA) appears to have based her consideration of AMG’s technical proposal on a specific aspect of AMG’s proposal.  In this regard she noted: AMG’s technical proposal provided a statement of “intent” to “follow all necessary . .