TITLE:  J W Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.3; B-285882.6, July 2, 2001
BNUMBER:  B-285882.3; B-285882.6
DATE:  July 2, 2001
**********************************************************************
J W Holding Group & Associates, Inc., B-285882.3; B-285882.6, July 2, 2001

   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.        
                                                                              
                                                                              

   Decision
    
    
Matter of:    J W Holding Group & Associates, Inc.
    
File:             B-285882.3; B-285882.6
    
Date:              July 2, 2001
    
Daniel Koch, Esq., Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, for the
protester.
Mathew S. Perlman, Esq., Richard J. Webber, Esq., and Natalie S. Walters,
Esq., Arent Fox, for Sodexho Marriott Management, an intervenor.
Julius Rothlein, Esq., Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps, for the agency.
David A. Ashen, Esq., and John M. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
    
Regulation requiring source selection authority (SSA) to exercise
*independent judgment* does not preclude SSA from acting as head of the
price evaluation team.
DECISION
    
J.W. Holding Group & Associates, Inc. (JWH) protests the U.S. Marine
Corps's (USMC) award of a contract to Sodexho Marriott Management (SMM)
under request for proposals (RFP) No. M00027‑00‑R‑0002,
for regional garrison food service on the West Coast.  The protester
challenges the conduct of the evaluation.
    

   We deny the protest.
    
The RFP provided for award of a primarily fixed-price incentive contract
for a base period of 5 years, with 3 option years, to provide regional
garrison food service at 23 messhalls on the West Coast.  Award was to be
made on a best-value basis, with proposals to be evaluated under four
criteria:  price, integrated organization and management, small business
subcontracting plan, and past performance.  Price was the most important
criterion and was equal in importance to the other criteria combined.
    
Four offerors submitted proposals.  SMM's, JWH's and a third offeror's
(Eurest Support Services (ESS)) proposals were included in the competitive
range.  After conducting written and oral discussions, USMC requested
final proposal revisions (FPR).  The FPR evaluation results were as
follows:
    

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                                       |JWH       |ESS       |SMM       |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Meal Service (Fixed Price Incentive)   |          |          |          |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|     Target Cost per Meal              |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|     Target Price per Meal             |          |          |          |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|     Total Target Price                |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|     Share Ratio (USMC/                |[DELETED] |[DELETED] |[DELETED] |
|       Contractor)                     |          |          |          |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|     Ceiling Price Per Meal            |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Meals per Labor Hour                   |[DELETED] |[DELETED] |[DELETED] |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Hour Maintenance (Fixed Price)         |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Time & Materials (T&M)                 |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Total Price (Target Price+             |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|Maintenance+T&M)                       |          |          |          |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Total Price (Ceiling Price+            |$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|$[DELETED]|
|Maintenance+T&M)                       |          |          |          |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Risk                                   |          |          |          |
|    Proposal                           |Moderate  |Low       |Low       |
|    Performance                        |Moderate  |Moderate  |Low       |
|---------------------------------------+----------+----------+----------|
|Technical Score                        |66.23     |84.2      |84.3      |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

    
    
Based on this evaluation, the agency concluded that SMM had submitted the
most advantageous offer.  USMC determined that, while SMM's and ESS's
technical proposals were *substantially equal,* SMM's FPR pricing, which
represented a [DELETED]-percent reduction from its initial pricing, was
*clearly the most favorable.*  Agency Report (AR), Tab 11, USMC Final
Summary of Findings and Source Selection Decision Final Summary, Mar. 12,
2001, at 6-9, 10-11.  The agency viewed JWH's pricing as *close to,* or
*roughly equivalent to* ESS's, but *much less attractive* than SMM's, and
its technical proposal as *much less favorabl[e]* than either SMM's or
ESS's.  Id. at 7‑9.  Upon learning of the resulting award to SMM,
and after being debriefed by the agency, JWH filed this protest with our
Office.
    
JWH asserts that it was improper for the source selection authority (SSA)
to serve as head of the price evaluation team, since Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) S: 15.308 provides that *the source selection decision
shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.*  This argument is clearly
without merit.  While FAR S: 15.308 requires the source selection decision
to be based on the SSA's exercise of independent judgment, it does not
expressly preclude the SSA from participating in the evaluation process,
and we see nothing in an SSA's doing so that is inherently inconsistent
with the exercise of independent judgment.  We are aware of no other
applicable prohibition in this regard.
    
JWH generally alleges that the price evaluation improperly focused only on
the proposed target pricing, and specifically challenges the evaluation of
the price realism of SMM's FPR.  USMC maintains that JWH is not an
interested party to pursue these allegations because it was not next in
line for award.  We agree.  Under the bid protest provisions of the
Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. S:S: 3551-56 (Supp. IV
1998), only an *interested party* may protest a federal procurement.  See
Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. S: 21.0(a) (2001).  Here, JWH has not
shown any basis to question the evaluation of either its own proposal or
ESS's; again, JWH's technical proposal was viewed as *much less
favorabl[e]* than ESS's, while its pricing was evaluated as only roughly
equal to ESS's.  (Indeed, while JWH's total target price was lower than
ESS's, its ceiling price was higher and its share ratio was much less
favorable to the government in the event of an overrun.)  AR, Tab 11, USMC
Final Summary, at 6-9, 10-11.  JWH has not demonstrated, and it is not
apparent, how a different approach to evaluating target pricing would have
changed the price standing of its proposal relative to ESS's sufficiently
to offset ESS's evaluated technical superiority.  In these circumstances,
there is no basis to question USMC's position that ESS, not JWH, would be
in line for award in the event that we found merit to JWH's challenge to
the evaluation of SMM's proposal.  A protester is not an interested party
where it would not be in line for award if its protest were sustained. 
Avondale Technical Servs., Inc., B-243330, July 18, 1991, 91-2 CPD
P: 72 at 2.
    
The protest is denied.
    
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel