BNUMBER:  B-277145 
DATE:  September 2, 1997
TITLE: Good Food Service, Inc., B-277145, September 2, 1997
**********************************************************************

DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective 
Order.  This redacted version has been approved for public release.
Matter of:Good Food Service, Inc.

File:     B-277145

Date:September 2, 1997

John E. Gagliano, Esq., Cohen, Gettings, Dunham & Davis, for the 
protester.
Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq., Theodore M. Bailey, P.C., for Selrico 
Services, Inc., an intervenor.
John Lariccia, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.
Scott Riback, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General 
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Protest that agency improperly found proposal technically unacceptable 
is denied where record shows proposal contained numerous and extensive 
informational deficiencies; agencies are under no obligation to seek 
clarification during discussions where proposal is so deficient that 
it would have to be significantly rewritten to be found technically 
acceptable.

DECISION

Good Food Service, Inc. protests the elimination of its proposal from 
further consideration, due to informational deficiencies, under 
request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4416-96-R-0103, issued by the 
Department of the Air Force for full food service at Fort Meade, 
Maryland.

We deny the protest.

The RFP called for fixed-price offers to provide food services for a 
base year and three 1-year options at Fort Meade.  The RFP required 
firms to submit detailed technical proposals including information 
relating to the offeror's quality control procedures, corporate 
experience, organizational and personnel resources, and past 
performance.  Firms were advised that the agency would perform a 
technical evaluation (using several equally-weighted evaluation 
criteria), a performance risk assessment, and a price evaluation to 
determine which offer represented the best overall value to the 
government.

Good Food submitted a timely proposal in response to the RFP.  After 
performing the initial technical evaluation, the Air Force eliminated 
Good Food's proposal from further consideration based primarily on its 
conclusion that the firm's offer contained such significant 
informational deficiencies that it would require a major rewrite to be 
considered technically acceptable.

Good Food maintains that the deficiencies cited by the agency in fact 
were minor in nature and that the agency should have provided it an 
opportunity to correct them.[1]

An offeror must submit an initial proposal that is adequately written 
and affirmatively states its merits, or it runs the risk of having its 
proposal rejected as technically unacceptable; offers that are 
properly determined unacceptable need not be included in the 
competitive range for discussion purposes.  Orbit Advanced Techs., 
Inc., B-271293, May 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD  para.  254 at 4.  Agencies properly 
may reject an offer where informational deficiencies are so numerous 
that their correction would essentially require a major rewriting of 
the proposal. See Chant Eng'g Co., Inc., B-257125.2, Dec. 19, 1994, 
94-2 CPD  para.  247 at 4.  In considering whether a proposal was properly 
rejected for informational deficiencies, we examine the record to 
determine, among other things, whether the RFP called for detailed 
information and the nature of the informational deficiencies.  Id. at 
3 
n.1.  

Offerors were required to provide detailed information under several 
evaluation criteria.  Under the organizational and personnel 
requirements evaluation criterion--the principal criterion under which 
Good Food's proposal was found technically unacceptable--firms were 
required to submit:  (1) a "portfolio" of the company including an 
organizational chart reflecting the names and titles of personnel that 
would fill key positions during contract performance; (2) information 
relating to the organizational function of each supervisor position; 
(3) information relating to the scope of authority and role of the 
contract manager and his or her alternate; (4) resumes for the 
proposed contract manager, assistant manager and supervisors that, at 
a minimum gave the name of each proposed key employee and showed that 
each had at least 5 years of pertinent experience; (5) evidence of the 
firm's ability to acquire necessary qualified personnel; and (6) 
information relating to proposed staffing.  

Good Food's proposal failed to include significant portions of the 
required information.  First, it did not include the required 
organizational tables reflecting the names and positions of the 
proposed staff for the contract; rather, the proposal included only 
two generic organizational tables that did not include the names of 
any proposed employees.  The staffing charts submitted also did not 
include the necessary personnel to perform the contract, for example, 
the required supervisors.

Second, the proposal did not include resumes meeting the RFP 
requirements.  Of the 10 resumes included in the proposal, 7 did not 
have names on them, and the 3 bearing names were for lower-level 
employees such as shift supervisors and the office manager.  
Additionally, of the resumes included, four affirmatively indicated 
that the individual in question currently was employed elsewhere, and 
an additional four were unclear regarding employment status (for 
example, the resume of the unnamed proposed assistant manager does not 
reflect employment information beyond 1992).  The proposal also did 
not include any key employee letters of commitment, or other similar 
documentation, in response to the RFP requirement for "evidence of 
their ability to acquire necessary qualified personnel to satisfy the 
contract performance requirements."  Good Food's proposal also stated 
that Macon D. Harris was the firm's current administrative vice 
president, despite the fact that the firm sent the Air Force a letter 
dated December 6, 1996, stating that this individual no longer was 
associated with Good Food.  In a similar vein, the proposal provided a 
brief description of the "responsibilities and authority" of four key 
employee positions, but included resumes for only one.[2]

The information at issue was necessary for evaluating the relative 
merits of the proposals in terms of staffing and key personnel 
qualifications, matters that are central to performance of a service 
contract.  In light of this consideration and the RFP's requirement 
for detailed information, the agency reasonably found Good Food's 
proposal deficient.  Further, we do not agree with Good Food that the 
deficiencies were minor.  Rather, we think the Air Force had a 
reasonable basis to find that the omissions were extensive, indicated 
a lack of understanding of the requirement, and were sufficiently 
significant that their correction would constitute a substantial 
rewrite of the proposal.   Under these circumstances, the agency 
properly rejected Good Food's proposal rather than provide the firm an 
opportunity to correct the deficiencies.  Chant Eng'g Co., Inc., 
supra, at 4.

Good Food maintains that one of the evaluators was biased against it, 
as shown by the fact that the individual in question scored its 
proposal lower than the other evaluators.  Government officials are 
presumed to act in good faith and we will not attribute unfair or 
prejudicial motives to procurement officials on the basis of inference 
or supposition.  Rockwell Int'l Corp., B-261953.2; B-261953.6, Nov. 
22, 1995, 96-1 CPD  para.  34 at 9 n.10.  The mere fact that an evaluator 
scored the proposal lower than other evaluators does not constitute 
irrefutable evidence of an intent to injure the protester, as is 
required to establish agency bias.  Science & Tech., Inc.; Madison 
Servs., Inc., B-272748 et al., Oct. 25, 1996, 97-1 CPD  para.  121 at 6.[3]

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States

1. Good Food, the incumbent for this requirement, initially argued 
that the Air Force improperly failed to extend its contract.  Good 
Food did not further discuss this contention in its comments 
responding to the agency's administrative report, and we therefore 
deem the issue abandoned.  International Management and Communications 
Corp., B-272456, Oct. 23, 1996, 96-2 CPD  para.  156 at 2-3 n.2.  In any 
case, an agency's decision whether to extend an existing contract is a 
matter of contract administration beyond our bid protest jurisdiction.  
4 C.F.R.  sec.  21.5(a) (1997).

2. In numerous instances, the proposal also discussed activities and 
responsibilities clearly unrelated to the requirement.  For example, 
the proposal referred to use of the "university property 
administration" methods; maintaining the "proven procedures and 
practices of the state"; and Good Food's assumption of "the 
responsibilities for the Chesterfield County Jail."  The proposal also 
included several certificates allegedly showing the qualifications of 
various personnel, but with no names on the certificates, and one Air 
Force award that does not bear the name of Good Food or any other 
firm.

3. In fact, the record tends to support the opposite conclusion.  
During the acquisition, Good Food alleged that another individual 
appointed to the technical evaluation panel was biased against it.  
The agency, while disagreeing with the protester, nonetheless removed 
the individual from the panel prior to the evaluation of proposals, 
stating that it was taking this action out of an abundance of caution.