TITLE:  Ti Hu, Inc., B-284360, March 31, 2000
BNUMBER:  B-284360
DATE:  March 31, 2000
**********************************************************************
Ti Hu, Inc., B-284360, March 31, 2000

Decision

Matter of: Ti Hu, Inc.

File: B-284360

Date: March 31, 2000

Sam Zalman Gdanski, Esq., Jeffrey Gdanski, Esq., and Scott Gdanski, Esq.,
for the protester.

David H. Turner, Esq., Department of the Navy, for the agency.

Katherine Riback, Esq. and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

1. Agency reasonably determined that experience on full food service
contracts was less relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance than
experience on mess attendant services, which were the services being
procured.

2. New and independent protest contentions are untimely, where the
contentions are based on the agency report but were raised more than 10
calendar days after receipt of the report.

DECISION

Ti Hu, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Acorn Food Services, Inc.
under request for proposals (RFP) No. N00140-99-R-3749, issued by the
Department of the Navy for mess attendant services at Submarine Base Groton.
The protester contends that the past performance evaluation was
unreasonable.

We deny the protest in part and dismiss it in part.

The RFP provided for award on a best value basis, considering past
performance and price, with past performance being more important than
price. In evaluating past performance, the RFP stated that "greater
consideration [would be given] to the contracts which the [agency] feels are
more relevant to the RFP [work]." RFP sect. M(2). The possible past performance
ratings were exceptional, satisfactory, and unacceptable. Agency Report, Tab
17, Contract Review Board Presentation, at 6.

Initial proposals were received from seven offerors, including Ti Hu and
Acorn Food Services, Inc. The agency requested and received clarification
from Ti Hu regarding its relationship with its subcontractor. Agency Report,
Tab 8, Letter from Contracting Officer to Ti Hu (Oct. 15, 1999), and Tab 9,
Letter from Ti Hu to Contracting Officer (Oct. 18, 1999). No discussions
were held with any offeror.

In evaluating Ti Hu's past performance, the agency contacted the identified
points of contact (POC) for two of the three Ti Hu contracts that appeared
most relevant to the statement of work. The POCs indicated that Ti Hu
deserved an exceptional rating for its full food service work, but only a
satisfactory rating for its mess attendant work, which was considered by the
agency to be more relevant to the instant RFP's requirements than the full
food service work. Ti Hu's past performance proposal identified six
contracts for its subcontractor, of which only one contract was for mess
attendant services. In evaluating the past performance of Ti Hu's
subcontractor, the agency contacted the POC for the mess attendant service
contract, which gave the subcontractor a satisfactory rating, and a POC for
one of the full food service contracts, which gave the subcontractor an
exceptional rating. While considered satisfactory overall, Ti Hu's past
performance was ranked sixth out of the seven proposals received. Agency
Report at 5-8.

Acorn's past performance was found exceptional. Four of the five contracts
identified in Acorn's past performance proposal were for full food services.
Acorn's most relevant contract was the incumbent mess attendant service
contract at Submarine Base Groton, for which the POC rated Acorn's
performance exceptional. The agency contacted POCs for three of the four
full food service contracts, for which Acorn received one exceptional and
two satisfactory ratings, with positive comments about Acorn's corporate
responsiveness and cleanliness. Acorn's past performance was rated first
overall of the proposals received. Id. at 8-11.

The agency determined that the minimal price savings in Ti Hu's proposal
were more than offset by the substantial differences in Ti Hu's and Acorn's
past performance, particularly considering Acorn's exceptional performance
as the incumbent contractor, and that Acorn's proposal therefore represented
the best value to the government. Id. at 11-13. Award was made to Acorn on
December 22. Id. at 13.

Ti Hu filed an agency-level protest, which was denied the same day. Agency
Report, Tab 23, Agency-Level Protest (Dec. 28, 1999), and Tab 24, Denial of
Agency-Level Protest (Dec. 28, 1999). This protest to our Office followed.

The protester argues in its initial protest, filed December 29, 1999, that
the agency erred in evaluating the past performance of Ti Hu and its
subcontractor because it gave less weight to the full food service contracts
than to the mess attendant service contracts. Ti Hu argues that full food
service contracts were substantially similar to mess attendant service
contracts, and were "more labor intensive and more complex contracts than
Mess Attendants Requirements." Ti Hu's Protest at 3.

In response, the agency acknowledges that, while "success under a full food
services contract would appear to translate into a likelihood of success
under less complex mess attendant services, this has not historically been
the case." The agency states that success under mess attendant service
contracts requires the "additional ability to coordinate with the other
service providers and/or government personnel that are responsible for the
overall management of the facility." It has been the agency's experience
that a contractor's success in running an entire food service facility does
not necessarily translate into success in providing mess attendant services
in a facility in which that contractor does not have managerial control.
Agency Report at 17-18.

Although Ti Hu responds that "a full food contract incorporates all the work
required under a mess attendant contract," Ti Hu's Comments at 13, this
amounts to mere disagreement with the agency's judgment, which does not
establish that the evaluation was unreasonable. See Correa Enters., Inc.,
B-241912, Mar. 5, 1991, 91-1 CPD para. 249 at 3. Based on our review, we find
the agency's evaluation in this area reasonable.

In its initial protest, Ti Hu also argued that it deserved a higher past
performance rating than satisfactory based on the past performance of its
subcontractor. In its report, the Navy stated how it considered the past
performance of Ti Hu's subcontractor in its evaluation and explained why the
subcontractor's experience did not result in Ti Hu's past performance rating
increasing beyond the satisfactory level. Agency Report at 18-21. Ti Hu's
comments on the agency report did not attempt to dispute or rebut the
agency's detailed explanation. Where, as here, an agency specifically
addresses an allegation raised by the protester in its initial protest, and
the protester fails to rebut the agency's response in its comments, we
consider the allegation to have been abandoned by the protester and will not
consider it further. Battelle Memorial Inst., B-259571.3, Dec. 8, 1995,
95-2 CPD para. 284 at 2-3.

Ti Hu argues, for the first time in its agency report comments filed
February 14, 2000, that Acorn received an "unfair advantage" on its past
performance evaluation due to the fact that it was the incumbent contractor.
Protester's Comments at 15-17. The agency contends that this aspect of Ti
Hu's protest is untimely. We agree. Ti Hu was on notice as of the December
28 debriefing and denial of its agency-level protest of the fact that the
agency had high regard for Acorn's performance as the incumbent contractor
and this was a significant factor in the evaluation. Agency Report, Tab 22,
Memorandum for File (Dec. 28, 1999), and Tab 24, Denial of Agency-Level
Protest
at 2 (Dec. 28, 1999). Our Bid Protest Regulations require that a protest be
filed within 10 calendar days after the basis of protest is known or should
have been known. 4 C.F.R. sect. 21.2(a)(2) (1999). Since Ti Hu's allegation that
Acorn enjoyed an unfair incumbent advantage was not raised in its initial
protest, but was only raised in its comments, filed more than a month after
it became aware of this basis of protest, this allegation is untimely and
will not be considered.

Ti Hu's February 14 comments on the agency report also objected to certain
specifics in the evaluation of its past performance that were not mentioned
in its initial protest. For example, Ti Hu disputed the POC's concerns
regarding its management of a mess attendant service contract in Niagara
Falls, New York, and claims that it should have been allowed to respond to
any negative past performance information concerning this contract.
Protester's Comments at 3-10. Ti Hu also objected to the agency's
characterization of a contract that it performed at the Vermont Air National
Guard Base as a full food service contract, rather than a mess attendant
service contract. Id. at 11-12. Here too, the agency contends that these
allegations are untimely filed.

These protest allegations were each based on the detailed discussion of the
evaluation of Ti Hu's past performance that was contained in the agency
report, which was received by Ti Hu by telefacsimile on February 1, 2000,
without the attached documents. [1] Each new protest ground must
independently satisfy the timeliness requirements of our Regulations, which
do not contemplate the piecemeal presentation or development of protest
issues. RAMCOR Servs. Group, Inc.,

B-276633.2 et al., March 23, 1998, 98-1 CPD para. 121 at 9 n.9. Thus, Ti Hu's
February 14 protest of these matters was untimely filed more than 10 days
after being apprised of the bases for these supplemental protest grounds.

We are unpersuaded by Ti Hu's argument that these latter contentions were
only "supporting arguments, proving that the Protester was improperly
evaluated." Protester's Response to Motion to Dismiss at 5. As a general
rule, the timeliness of specific bases of protest raised after the filing of
a timely protest depends on the relationship the later-raised bases bear to
the initial protest. Where the later-raised bases present new and
independent grounds for protest, they must independently satisfy our
timeliness requirements; conversely, where the later-raised bases merely
provide additional support for an earlier, timely raised protest basis, we
will consider the later-raised arguments. Vinnell Corp., B-270793,
B-270793.2, Apr. 24, 1996, 96-1 CPD para. 271 at 7. Here, these supplemental
contentions were independent of Ti Hu's initial protest, which asserted that
its past performance was misevaluated because its subcontractor's past
performance was not properly considered and full food service contract
experience was given insufficient weight.

The protest is denied in part and dismissed in part.

Comptroller General
of the United States

Notes

1. Given the detailed discussion of these matters in the agency report, the
record simply does not support the protester's claim that these new protest
grounds were actually based on the attachments to the report, which it
received on February 2.