BNUMBER:  B-274406
DATE:  December 9, 1996
TITLE:  Speedy Food Service, Inc.

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

Matter of:Speedy Food Service, Inc.

File:     B-274406

Date:December 9, 1996

Jacqueline Z. Nikodym, Esq., and Theodore M. Bailey, Esq., for the 
protester.
William T. Welch, Esq., and John R. Tolle, Esq., Barton, Mountain & 
Tolle, for Cantu Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Maj. Robert L. Duecaster and Col. Nicholas P. Retson, Department of 
the Army, for the agency.
Tania L. Calhoun, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the 
General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that contracting agency improperly failed to conduct 
sufficiently specific discussions with the protester regarding its 
staffing is denied where the record shows that the discussion 
questions asked conveyed the agency's concerns about staffing which 
reasonably could be discerned from the protester's initial proposal, 
and the specific area of concern only became evident upon review of 
the protester's best and final offer (BAFO) and post-BAFO 
clarification of proposed staffing; agencies are not required to 
notify offerors of deficiencies remaining in their proposals or to 
conduct successive rounds of discussions until such deficiencies are 
removed.

DECISION

Speedy Food Service, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Cantu 
Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. DABT39-95-R-0002, 
issued by the Department of the Army to obtain food services at Fort 
Sill, Oklahoma.  Speedy argues that the Army conducted inadequate 
discussions with it and improperly selected the awardee's slightly 
higher-priced proposal.

We deny the protest.

The solicitation describes Fort Sill's requirements for food services 
as falling into two categories, one of which is at issue here.  
Management and food production (M&FP) services include the preparation 
and serving of food and associated administrative tasks.  The 
solicitation accounted for those dining facilities requiring M&FP 
services in one contract line item (CLIN), which was divided into 
several sub-CLINs to account for a varying range in the average number 
of meals served.  Offerors were also given estimated work-load data 
for the services to be provided, including the headcounts for 
breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Proposals would be evaluated under technical, management, and price 
factors, in descending order of importance.  The technical factor 
contained five subfactors, the first and fourth most important of 
which were, respectively, the organization and staffing subfactor and 
the property administration subfactor.  The nonprice factors and 
subfactors would be point-scored and adjectivally rated.  Price would 
not be scored, but its importance would increase, and could become the 
controlling factor, if differences between the offerors' 
technical/management scores were small or nonexistent.  Award would be 
made to the firm whose proposal was most advantageous to the 
government.  

The Army's source selection evaluation board (SSEB) evaluated the 
eight proposals submitted and included five of them in the competitive 
range.  Discussions were conducted, best and final offers (BAFO) were 
submitted, and clarifications were requested and received.  The final 
evaluation results show that Firm A received a higher overall rating 
than either Cantu or Speedy, but offered a higher price.  Cantu was 
rated 85 overall, to Speedy's 84, both "excellent" ratings--Cantu 
received "excellent" ratings under both the technical and management 
factors, and Speedy received a "satisfactory" rating under the 
technical factor and an "excellent" rating under the management 
factor.  Cantu's price of $21,841,901 was slightly higher than 
Speedy's price of $21,799,561. 

In making his source selection decision, the contracting officer 
declined to follow the SSEB's recommendation to award the contract to 
Firm A, since he believed that the firm's advantages did not justify 
its additional cost.  He noted Cantu's excellent ratings under both 
the technical and management factors and the fact that its price was 
lower than Firm A's price.  While he recognized the SSEB's concern 
with Cantu's low staffing levels during the serving hours, citing an 
example, he determined that the levels were only slightly lower than 
those currently used by Cantu as the incumbent subcontractor providing 
these services.  The contracting officer recognized that Speedy 
offered a lower price than Cantu, but pointed to its lower technical 
rating, which was primarily due to the SSEB's concern with the firm's 
inadequate staffing during serving time and problems with the firm's 
property control system.  The contracting officer focused on staffing 
and stated that, for example, Speedy proposed about three fewer 
personnel than Cantu during critical meal serving times, which 
significantly increased the risk of nonperformance.  He did not 
believe that the firm's lower price justified this risk.  The contract 
was awarded to Cantu on August 23, and Speedy filed this protest after 
its debriefing.  

Under the organization and staffing subfactor,[1] each offeror was 
instructed to submit a breakdown and set forth the proposed manpower 
requirements for its administrative staff and for each dining 
facility, including a recapitulation of the total requirements.  
Speedy's proposal complied with this requirement by, among other 
things, providing staffing charts for M&FP facilities.  One chart 
listed the estimated number of employees by meal range, and the other 
listed the daily distribution of hours for each labor classification 
by meal range.  Neither chart was broken down into meal serving times 
such as breakfast, lunch, or dinner.     

The Army was concerned that Speedy had proposed several M&FP positions 
that were not required by the RFP.  During discussions, Speedy was 
asked to explain the duties planned for these specifically identified 
positions, since the RFP did not require them.  Speedy was also 
cautioned that without these positions, its M&FP staffing would be 
inadequate to meet the RFP's requirements.

In its BAFO, Speedy stated that it had deleted the requirements for 
the positions of concern to the agency and had redistributed some of 
them into other labor categories.  The manning charts show a slight 
increase in overall staffing for some meal ranges.  The SSEB concluded 
that Speedy's staffing was in line with the government estimate except 
for the most critical meal serving period (i.e. the period when the 
most meals would be served); staffing in this category was considered 
very low and, since this was the predominant category, it could 
degrade Speedy's ability to meet the RFP's requirements.  In weighing 
the offers to arrive at his source selection decision, the contracting 
officer asked some offerors, including Speedy, to clarify their 
proposals by providing staffing levels for all hours of operation.  
After considering Speedy's response, the SSEB concluded that Speedy 
planned to use very low staffing during both high and low meal service 
periods, posing significant risk that the proposed approach would not 
meet the RFP's requirements.  As noted above, the contracting officer 
concurred.

Speedy contends that the Army improperly failed to conduct 
sufficiently specific discussions with the firm.  The protester argues 
that the Army should have specifically directed the firm to its 
concerns that its mealtime staffing was too low.

Agencies are required to conduct meaningful discussions with all 
competitive range offerors.  Health Management Resources, Inc., 
B-270185; B-270185.2, Jan. 25, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  23.  Offerors are not 
entitled to all-encompassing discussions, but must be led into areas 
of their proposals which require amplification or correction.  Son's 
Quality Food Co., B-244528.2, Nov. 4, 1991, 91-2 CPD  para.  424.  
Discussions should be as specific as practicable considerations will 
permit, Data Preparation, Inc., B-233569, Mar. 24, 1989, 89-1 CPD  para.  
300, but the degree of specificity required in conducting discussions 
is not constant and is primarily a matter for the procuring agency to 
determine.  JCI Envtl. Servs., B-250752.3, Apr. 7, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  
299.  

Speedy's charts did not break out its staffing levels by meal time, 
but only provided overall staffing levels by labor classification.  As 
a result, the Army could not have formulated specific discussion 
questions regarding Speedy's mealtime staffing.  Speedy's initial 
proposal raised more basic concerns to the evaluators, which were 
conveyed almost verbatim to the firm in the form of discussion 
questions.[2]  Further, despite the specific question indicating the 
agency's concern that Speedy would be understaffed if it eliminated 
the identified positions, Speedy's BAFO only shifted a few positions 
and deleted the rest, resulting in a minimal staffing increase in some 
meal ranges.  The Army's concerns regarding Speedy's staffing were not 
alleviated, and those concerns became more sharply focused when Speedy 
submitted its clarification response breaking down its staffing by the 
hour.  The Army was not obligated to raise its concerns about Speedy's 
proposed mealtime staffing at this point; agencies are not required to 
notify offerors of deficiencies remaining in their proposals or to 
conduct successive rounds of discussions until such deficiencies are 
removed.  Rockwell Int'l Corp., supra.

Speedy's argument that the consideration of mealtime staffing levels 
was improper because mealtime staffing is not an RFP evaluation 
criterion is untimely, since it learned that the agency considered 
such levels when it received its debriefing, but did not raise this 
issue until it filed its comments on the agency report more than 10 
calendar days later.  Bid Protest Regulations,  sec.  21.2(a)(2), 61 Fed. 
Reg. 39039, 39043 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.2(a)(2)).  
Moreover, in performing an evaluation, an agency may take into account 
specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically 
encompassed by the stated evaluation criteria.  See Cobra 
Technologies, Inc., B-272041; B-272041.2, Aug. 20, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  
73.  In our view, the consideration of an offeror's staffing levels at 
meal times is logically encompassed under the organization and 
staffing subfactor.  

 An award to an offeror with a higher technically scored proposal and 
a higher price is unobjectionable, so long as the result is consistent 
with the evaluation criteria and the agency has determined that the 
technical difference is sufficiently significant to outweigh the price 
difference.  Calspan Corp., B-258441, Jan. 19, 1995, 95-1 CPD  para.  28.  
Here, the decision to select Cantu for award despite its slightly 
higher price turned on the fact that its staffing levels during meal 
times were more advantageous than Speedy's levels.  The protester's 
view that the differences in the staffing levels are minimal is 
fundamentally a disagreement with the agency's view, but does not 
render that view unreasonable.  Accordingly, we see no basis to object 
to the agency's selection of Cantu's slightly higher-priced but 
technically superior proposal.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States
     
1. We need not address Speedy's challenges associated with the 
property administration subfactor since, as Speedy acknowledges, the 
record is clear that the firm's weaknesses there were not decisive in 
the contracting officer's source selection decision.  Hence, even if 
Speedy's allegations were true, the firm was not prejudiced by any 
impropriety on the part of the agency.  See Litton Sys., Inc., Data 
Sys. Div., B-262099, Nov. 17, 1995, 95-2 CPD  para.  261.  Prejudice is an 
essential element of a viable protest.  See Lithos Restoration, Ltd., 
71 Comp. Gen. 367 (1992), 92-1 CPD  para.  379.  

2. Speedy's focus on the allegedly more specific questions asked of 
Cantu is misplaced.  Because the degree of deficiencies in proposals 
will vary, the amount of specificity or detail of discussions also 
will vary among offerors, Pope Maintenance Corp., B-206143.3, Sept. 9, 
1982, 82-2 CPD  para.  218, and there is no requirement that all offerors 
receive the same number or type of discussion questions.  Rockwell 
Int'l Corp., B-261953.2; B-261953.6, Nov. 22, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  34.  
The record shows that Cantu's proposal did break its staffing down by 
meal times, providing the Army with a basis to ask the questions it 
raised.