J. Caye Premier Dining, Inc. (W81K0023Q0092)

B-421890 Nov 02, 2023 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights J. Caye Premier Dining, Inc., a small business of Houston, Texas, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W81K0023Q0092, issued by the Department of the Army for the provision of a food service supervisor and food service workers/cashiers to supplement the staff at Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado. The protester contends that the RFQ improperly limits application of the preference under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (RSA) and is ambiguous as to how that preference will be applied. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: J. Caye Premier Dining, Inc. File: B-421890 Date: November 2, 2023 Matthew E. Feinberg, Esq., Katherine B. Burrows, Esq., Joseph P. Loman, Esq., and Dozier L. Gardner, Jr., Esq., Piliero Mazza PLLC, for the protester. Major Jill B. Wiley, and Lieutenant Colonel Nolan T. Koon, Department of the Army, for the agency. Nathaniel S. Canfield, Esq., and Evan D. Wesser, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1. Protest alleging that priority under the Randolph‑Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. § 107, must be afforded to all licensed blind vendors, rather than state licensing agencies, is denied where the protester has not advanced a reasonable construction of the Act and its implementing regulations. 2. Protest alleging that the solicitation is ambiguous regarding how priority under the Randolph‑Sheppard Act will be applied with respect to a best‑value tradeoff is dismissed as academic where the agency has stated that it will amend the solicitation to resolve potentially conflicting terms. DECISION J. Caye Premier Dining, Inc., a small business of Houston, Texas, protests the terms of request for quotations (RFQ) No. W81K0023Q0092, issued by the Department of the Army for the provision of a food service supervisor and food service workers/cashiers to supplement the staff at Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado. The protester contends that the RFQ improperly limits application of the preference under the Randolph‑Sheppard Act (RSA) and is ambiguous as to how that preference will be applied. We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part. BACKGROUND The agency issued the RFQ pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation part 12 on June 29, 2023, and amended it twice. Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 2; Agency Report (AR), Tabs 3, 5, 7. The RFQ seeks quotations for food service staffing at Evans Army Community Hospital at Fort Carson, Colorado. COS at 2; AR, Tab 3, RFQ at 35. The RFQ contemplates award of a single, fixed‑price contract with a 1‑year period of performance and four 1‑year option periods. RFQ at 3‑7, 11, 36. Relevant here, the RFQ states that the agency will accept quotations only from the state licensing agency (SLA) in accordance with the RSA or small businesses.[1] AR, Tab 3a, Instructions to Offerors, at 1. The RFQ further explains: This procurement is subject to the [RSA], 20 U.S.C. § 107, Operation of Vending Facilities and 34 C.F.R. § 395.33, Operation of Cafeterias by Blind Vendors, which establishes a priority for blind persons recognized and represented by the [SLA], in the award of contracts for the operation of cafeterias on federal facilities. . . . This notice is not designed to discourage competition[;] rather, it notifies all potential [vendors] that the priority established by the [RSA] for [quotations] received from SLAs and their blind vendors is applicable to this procurement. The evaluation criteria [are] the same for all competing [vendors], including the responsible SLA. The award will only be made to a [s]mall [b]usiness concern or an SLA. If the SLA is dissatisfied with an action taken relative to its [quotation], it may file a complaint with the Secretary of Education under the provisions of 34 C.F.R. § 395.37. Id.[2] In setting forth evaluation criteria, the RFQ advises that “if one or more RSA [SLAs] submits a [quotation], the source selection will be carried out in accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 107, 34 C.F.R. § 395.33, and other relevant laws and regulations as applicable.” Id. at 4. The RFQ further states that award will be made on a best‑value tradeoff basis considering past performance and compensation plan factors, with the additional requirement that an SLA vendor is required to submit an acceptable subcontracting plan. Id. On July 26, 2023, the protester filed an agency‑level protest, arguing that the RFQ improperly limited application of the priority under the RSA to SLAs and that the priority should instead be given to all blind vendors.[3] AR, Tab 21, Agency‑Level Protest at 4‑7.