BNUMBER:  B-270819.2
DATE:  May 14, 1996
TITLE:  Comfort Inn South

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Comfort Inn South

File:     B-270819.2

Date:May 14, 1996

Phillip E. Johnson for the protester.
Lori S. Chofnas, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Where record supports agency determination that the need for providing 
a smooth transition between civilian and military life mandated 
consideration of offeror's past performance in solicitation for 
lodging and transportation of applicants for military service, use of 
negotiated procedures was justified, since award would not be based on 
price alone.

DECISION

Comfort Inn South protests the terms of request for proposals (RFP) 
No. N00140-96-R-0422, issued by the Department of the Navy, Fleet and 
Industrial Supply Center, for accommodations for applicants for 
military service.  Comfort Inn South essentially challenges the 
agency's decision to conduct the procurement using negotiated 
procedures, rather than sealed bidding.

We deny the protest. 

The RFP, issued on December 15, 1995, provides for award of an 
indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contract for a period of 1 
year, with three 1-year option periods, to provide applicants with 
lodging, meals (breakfast and supper), and transportation to the 
Jacksonville, Florida, military entrance processing station (MEPS) in 
accordance with the statement of work (SOW).  The schedule, section B 
of the RFP, requires pricing on the basis of serving an estimated 
16,000 applicants during each year of contract performance, in 
addition to providing testing rooms (an estimated 264 during the year) 
and delivering technical data as specified in the SOW.  Section M of 
the RFP, as amended, states that the agency will consider price and 
past performance in selecting the offer most advantageous to the 
government, with past performance more important than price.

Paragraph 1.10.1 of the SOW, in pertinent part, requires the 
successful offeror to provide transportation to incoming applicants 
from the Greyhound bus terminal in Jacksonville to the contractor's 
facility.  The contractor must pick up applicants within 30 minutes of 
receiving a phone call from the bus terminal.  On January 4, 1996, 
prior to the amended date of January 23 set for receipt of proposals, 
the agency issued amendment No. 0003 to the solicitation, which 
advised potential offerors that approximately 10 percent of the 
estimated 16,000 applicants would require transportation from the bus 
terminal.

Section L of the RFP, the instructions for preparing and submitting 
proposals, calls for offerors to describe past performance on directly 
related or similar contracts held within the last 4 years, of similar 
scope, magnitude, and complexity, emphasizing similarity of such 
contracts to the SOW.  The RFP also states that any offeror without 
relevant past performance history will receive a neutral rating for 
past performance.

Comfort Inn filed this protest with our Office on January 22, 1 day 
prior to the date set for receipt of initial proposals, challenging 
the agency's use of negotiated procedures and intention to evaluate 
past performance.

The protester asserts that, for the last 10 years, the agency has 
satisfied its lodging requirements through sealed bidding procedures.  
The protester argues that the decision here to use negotiated 
procedures cannot be supported by the need either to consider factors 
other than price in selecting a contractor or to conduct discussions 
with offerors.  The protester contends that consideration of past 
performance will provide an unfair advantage to the incumbent 
contractor, which, Comfort Inn asserts, is the only motel in the 
Jacksonville area that has performed on a similar contract.

The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) directs contracting 
agencies to use the competitive procedure that is best suited to the 
circumstances of the procurement.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(a)(1)(B) (1994).  
CICA does, however, provide that sealed bidding shall be used if:  (1) 
time permits; (2) award will be based on price; (3) discussions are 
not necessary; and (4) more than one bid is expected.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  
2304(a)(2)(A); F&H Mfg. Corp., B-244997, Dec. 6, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  520.  
If any one of these conditions is not present, sealed bidding may not 
be used; negotiated procedures (competitive proposals) are to be 
utilized.  10 U.S.C.  sec.  2304(a)(2)(B).  The determination as to whether 
circumstances support the use of negotiated procedures is largely a 
discretionary matter within the purview of the contracting officer.  
Federal Acquisition Regulation  sec.  6.401; Military Base Management, Inc. 
66 Comp. Gen. 179 (1986), 86-2 CPD  para.  720.  If the contracting officer 
decides that competitive proposals are necessary, he is required to 
explain briefly which of the four requirements for sealed bidding are 
not met.  I.T.S. Corp., B-243223, July 15, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  55.

We find that the record here supports the agency's determination to 
use negotiated procedures rather than sealed bidding on the ground 
that the award will not be based on price alone.  The record shows 
that the MEPS provides comprehensive qualifications screening and 
processing for military applicants for all branches of the service.  
Upon reporting, applicants must pass a variety of tests designed to 
measure aptitude, physical and psychological ability to perform as a 
member of the armed services.  Testing begins at 5:30 a.m. and lasts 
approximately 12 hours.  The agency notes that this testing generally 
represents the candidate's first experience with the military, and the 
agency considers a stress-free environment essential both to encourage 
recruitment and to ensure that applicants perform their best during 
the testing.  To ensure the delivery of the highest quality of 
services, the agency contends, it is necessary to consider a 
contractor's past performance in evaluating proposals. 

We think it was reasonable for the agency to assume that there is a 
correlation between the quality of service that can be expected from 
an offeror and the quality of the offeror's past performance.  Given 
the agency's concern about ensuring a high quality of service, we see 
no basis to question the use of negotiated procedures, which allow the 
agency to evaluate the quality of the offeror's past performance in 
making a selection decision.[1]  That the requirement previously was 
procured through sealed bidding procedures is simply not material to 
the reasonableness of a decision to now use negotiated procedures.  
Id.; see also Victor Graphics, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 410 (1990), 90-1 
CPD  para.  407 (agency's past practice is not a basis for questioning its 
application of otherwise correct procurement procedures).  Further, 
the agency is not required to forgo consideration of past performance 
and use sealed bidding simply to neutralize any alleged advantage that 
the incumbent might have if the agency utilizes such a technical 
evaluation factor.  I.T.S. Corp., supra.

The protester also contends that the RFP's transportation requirement 
is vague and ambiguous and that it is unable to estimate how often the 
contractor will have to provide transportation from the bus station to 
the hotel.  We find no merit to this contention.  The solicitation 
specifically advises offerors of the agency's estimate that 
approximately 10 percent of the 16,000 applicants expected each year, 
or 6 per day,[2] will require transportation.  Contrary to the 
protester's contention, we find this to be a fairly precise estimate.  
In any event, there is no requirement that a solicitation be so 
detailed as to completely eliminate all performance uncertainties and 
risks, as long as the solicitation contains sufficient information to 
enable bidders to compete on a relatively equal basis.  DJ's Servs., 
Inc., B-240623, Dec. 5, 1990, 90-2 CPD  para.  459.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. The agency also notes that negotiated procedures will allow the 
correction through discussions of irregularities and omissions that 
would require bid rejection in sealed bidding.  See, e.g., Hospitality 
Inn--Downtown, B-248750.3, Oct. 28, 1992, 92-2 CPD  para.  291 (denying a 
protest challenging the rejection of a bid for failure to acknowledge 
an amendment to the prior MEPS lodging solicitation).  For example, 
the agency notes that the inclusion of meals with the price for 
lodging represents a new format that, it anticipates, may generate the 
need for discussions.

2. In response to a question, the agency issued amendment No. 0004, 
which advised offerors that the MEPS would be open 5 days a week and 
13 Saturdays, less 4 training days and federal holidays.