BNUMBER:  B-275157
DATE:  January 27, 1997
TITLE:  Grants Janitorial and Food Service, Inc.

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

Matter of:Grants Janitorial and Food Service, Inc.

File:     B-275157

Date:January 27, 1997

Todd W. Smyth, Esq., and Louis P. Herns, Esq., Hood Law Firm, for the 
protester.
Maj. Robert L. Duecaster, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Stephen K. Simpson, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Alabama 
Department of Rehabilitation Services, for the intervenor.
C. Douglas McArthur, Esq., and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of 
the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the 
decision.

DIGEST

Under solicitation issued subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act 
(establishing priority for the blind in the award of contracts for 
operation of vending facilities on federal property) which did not 
require state licensing agency (SLA) for the blind to demonstrate in 
its offer the extent of its commitment to employing the blind in the 
performance of the contract, contention that the SLA has not made a 
firm commitment to ensuring the employment of the blind concerns a 
matter of contract administration for consideration by the contracting 
agency and the Department of Education, which is charged with 
overseeing the SLA's performance and is not for review by the General 
Accounting Office.

DECISION

Grants Janitorial and Food Service, Inc. protests the award of a 
contract to the Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services, a state 
licensing agency (SLA) for the blind, under request for proposals 
(RFP) No. DABT02-96-R-0002, for food services at Fort McClellan, 
Alabama.  Grants essentially argues that it was improper to apply an 
award preference to the SLA's offer without considering whether its 
proposed operating contractor had made a commitment to employ or 
assist the blind during performance.

We dismiss the protest.

The RFP called for award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a 
1-year fiscal year 1997 base period, with four 1-year option periods.  
The RFP listed seven evaluation factors, in addition to price.  It 
warned offerors that proposals unrealistically low in price would be 
deemed reflective of a lack of competence or a failure to understand 
the requirements of the statement of work.  It also advised offerors 
that the solicitation was subject to the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 
U.S.C.  sec.  107 (1994), which establishes a priority for the blind in the 
award of contracts for operation of vending facilities on federal 
property; that the agency would establish a competitive range; and 
that, in accordance with the Act, the Army would award a contract to 
the SLA without further discussions, if it found the SLA's proposal 
within that competitive range.  Otherwise, the agency would select the 
lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal for award.

Of the eight proposals submitted, only those from Grants and the SLA 
were found technically acceptable.  Since the SLA offered a lower 
price than Grants, the proposal clearly came within the competitive 
range.  Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)  sec.  15.609 (agencies are to 
include all proposals with a reasonable chance of award in the 
competitive range).  Accordingly, the Army awarded a contract to the 
SLA.  This protest to our Office followed.

The protester made two initial contentions, both of which it 
eventually abandoned.  The first contention concerned the awardee's 
failure to comply with FAR  sec.  52.219-15,[1] the applicability of which 
expired in 1993.  FAR  sec.  19.508(f).  The second was the allegation that 
the awardee's price was so low for the option periods as to reflect a 
failure to understand the requirements.  At the request of our Office, 
the agency provided Grants with a copy of the SLA's proposal, under 
protective order, to allow the protester an opportunity to identify 
the precise requirements that appeared understaffed.  The protester 
was unable to identify any.  
Grants's remaining contention is that the agency had a duty to ensure 
that the successful proposal evidenced a firm commitment to assisting 
the blind before extending the preference to the SLA.  As discussed 
below, we conclude that the agency had no such duty and that the 
degree to which the SLA utilizes the blind in performance of the 
contract is a matter of contract administration which we do not 
review.  Bid Protest Regulations, section 21.5(a), 61 Fed. Reg. 39039, 
39045 (1996) (to be codified at 4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a)); Specialty 
Plastics Prods., Inc., B-237545, Feb. 26, 1990, 90-1 CPD  para.  228.

The RFP did not require the SLA to describe in its proposal the extent 
to which the blind would be employed in performance of the contract.  
Thus there is no legal basis for the protester's contention that the 
SLA's commitment to assisting the blind should be considered in the 
evaluation of the SLA's proposal, or that evidence of such a 
commitment was a prerequisite to application of the award preference 
to the SLA's proposal.  See FAR  sec.  15.608(a); Inner Harbor West Joint 
Venture, B-249945.3, Mar. 11, 1993, 93-1 CPD  para.  232.  Rather, ensuring 
that the contract is performed consistent with the purpose of the 
Randolph-Sheppard Act is a matter of contract administration.  In this 
regard, the regulations addressing the Army's role under the Act 
specifically provide that it is the responsibility of the on-site 
official--that is, contract administration personnel such as a 
contracting officer's representative--to ensure that the operator is 
licensed by the SLA and that he utilizes sighted employees "only to 
the extent reasonably necessary."  32 C.F.R.  sec.  260.3(f) (1996).  
Further, Department of Education regulations provide for review of the 
SLA's performance and a suspension of the SLA's designation if it 
fails to comply with the purposes of the Act.  34 C.F.R.  sec.  395.17 
(1996).  Thus, there are regulatory procedures in place for overseeing 
the SLA's compliance, and the SLA risks loss of its status if it does 
not show such compliance.  Absent any solicitation provision requiring 
a specific commitment to assisting the blind, ensuring that the blind 
benefit from the award of the Fort McClellan contract is solely the 
responsibility of the agencies concerned with contract administration 
and oversight of the SLA's performance.

The protest is dismissed.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. This provision required an offeror certifying itself as an 
organization for the handicapped to agree that at least 75 percent of 
the direct labor required in performance of the contract be performed 
by handicapped individuals.