TITLE: Hot Shot Express, Inc.
BNUMBER: B-290482
DATE: August 2, 2002
**********************************************************************
Hot Shot Express, Inc. , B-290482, August 2, 2002
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: Hot Shot Express, Inc.
File: B-290482
Date: August 2, 2002
Judy W. Royals, for the protester.
Jesse W. Rigby, Esq., Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse, for
Crown Support Services, Inc., an intervenor.
Phillipa L. Anderson, Esq., Merilee D. Rosenberg, Esq., and Philip Kauffman,
Esq., Department of Veterans Affairs, 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
Where offeror's proposal indicated that it was part of a family of
wholly?owned subsidiaries and closely-held affiliates with interlocking
officers and boards of directors, and that the parent company would have
significant involvement in the proposed effort, agency could properly
attribute the past performance of the family
of companies to the offeror.
DECISION
Hot Shot Express, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Crown Support
Services, Inc. (CSS), under Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) solicitation
No. ALM 0205?1, for laundry transport services. Hot Shot principally
asserts that CSS was not eligible for award.
We deny the protest.
The solicitation, issued on February 8, 2002, provided for award of a
fixed-price contract for an approximately 6?month base period, with 2 option
years, for transporting laundry between various VA medical centers
(including those in Jackson and Gulfport, Mississippi; New Orleans,
Louisiana; Mountain Home, Tennessee; and Salisbury, North Carolina) and the
Naval Hospital and Dental Clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Award was to be
made to the responsible small business offeror whose conforming proposal was
most advantageous to the government. The solicitation provided for
proposals to be evaluated based on three evaluation factors: (1) past
performance; (2) "Technical/Offeror's Capabilities (Ability of Offeror to
meet the Government requirements as outlined . . .)," including
consideration of "Offeror's resources"; and (3) price. Federal Acquisition
Regulation Standard Clause � 52.212?2, Evaluation--Commercial Items (JAN
1999). The past performance factor was slightly more important than the
technical/offeror's capabilities factor, and the two factors combined were
equal in weight to price.
Five proposals were received in response to the solicitation; all were
included in the competitive range. Based on its evaluation of the
subsequent final proposal revisions, VA determined that CSS's proposal,
which received the highest evaluation score (198 of 200 available technical
and cost points), was most advantageous. Hot Shot's score was 186 points;
its offered price was higher than CSS's, and its overall past performance
and technical scores were lower. Upon learning of the resulting
March 21 award to CSS, and after receiving a debriefing, Hot Shot filed an
agency?level protest. That protest was denied, and Hot Shot then filed this
protest with our Office.
Hot Shot's protest focuses largely on its assertion that at the time of
award CSS lacked a Department of Transportation (DOT) motor carrier
identification number, which it claims was required by the qualifications
provisions of paragraph 7 of the solicitation's statement of work. That
provision stated as follows:
QUALIFICATIONS: Offers shall be considered from offerors who are regularly
established in business to provide transport services, who are financially
responsible, possess the vehicles, and personnel to furnish transport
services in the volume specified for all medical centers covered under this
contract. The successful offeror shall meet all Federal, State, and City
codes regarding the operation and performance of a transport service.
Hot Shot asserts that the agency improperly permitted CSS to rely on the DOT
motor carrier identification number of other related companies.
This argument is without merit. To the extent Hot Shot's protest can be
read as asserting that CSS will not meet all federal, state, and city codes
regarding the performance of transport services, its argument concerns
performance obligations, enforceable by the agency in its administration of
the contract. Compro Computer Servs., Inc., B-278651, Feb. 23, 1998, 98-1
CPD � 58 at 4; Health Care Waste Servs., B?266302, Jan. 19, 1996, 96-1 CPD �
13 at 2?3. As such, these provisions concern the general responsibility of
the awardee and its ability to perform the contract consistent with all
legal requirements. The agency found CSS to be a responsible contractor,
and we will not review its affirmative determination of CSS's responsibility
under the circumstances here. 4 C.F.R. � 21.5(c) (2002).
Viewing the protest as a whole, we understand Hot Shot's essential argument
to be that, lacking a DOT motor carrier identification number of its own,
CSS could not be "regularly established in business to provide transport
services"--as required by the solicitation--and could not have past
performance of its own. This argument is without merit. An agency properly
may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated
company to an offeror where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the
resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of
the offeror. Universal Bldg. Maint., Inc., B-282456, July 15, 1999, 99-2
CPD � 32 at 6. The relevant consideration is whether the resources of the
parent or affiliated company--its workforce, management, facilities or other
resources--will be provided or relied upon, such that the parent or
affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance.
Perini/Jones, Joint Venture, B?285906, Nov. 1, 2000, 2002 CPD � 68 at 4-5;
NAHB Research Ctr., Inc., B?278876.2, May 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD � 150 at 4-5.
Further, where, as here, no provision in the solicitation precludes offerors
from relying on the resources of their corporate parent or affiliated
companies in performing the contract, and an offeror represents in its
proposal that resources of a related company will be committed to the
contract, the agency properly may consider those resources in evaluating the
proposal. See Physician Corp. of Am., B-270698 et al., Apr. 10, 1996, 96-1
CPD � 198 at 13.
The record here indicates that the resources of CSS's parent and affiliated
companies will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. CSS's
proposal indicated that CSS is part of a family of wholly?owned subsidiaries
and closely?held affiliates with interlocking officers and boards of
directors, which provide a variety of services to the federal government,
and the parent of which was Crown Management Services, Inc. According to
the proposal, although the Crown companies operate as independent cost
centers, they report to the corporate office in Pensacola, Florida, from
which they receive corporate resources and support as required. CSS Past
Performance Proposal at 2.
In particular, the proposal stated that the solicited VA effort would be
managed from the Crown corporate office in Pensacola, which would provide
contract support for contract administration, quality control, safety,
finance and accounting, payroll, and accounts payable. CSS Technical
Proposal at 2. The proposal also provided that the project manager for the
contract would be the president of CSS, and included key personnel resumes
that further indicated that: the president of CSS also was the vice
president of Crown Management Services; the chairman of CSS also was the
chief executive officer and president of both Crown Management Services and
Crown Healthcare Laundry Services; the vice president of CSS also was the
vice president of Crown Management Services and a vice president of Crown
Healthcare Laundry Services; and the controller of CSS also was the
controller of Crown Management Services and Crown Healthcare Laundry
Services. Id.; CSS Past Performance Proposal at 9-17.
As for the required delivery vehicles, the proposal indicated that the Crown
companies lease tractors and other trucks from specified rental companies,
including Ryder Transportation Systems, which then are responsible for
maintaining the trucks for the Crown companies. CSS Technical Proposal at
2. In this regard, in response to Hot Shot's protest, a manager at Ryder
submitted a declaration explaining that Ryder furnishes trucks to the Crown
companies, including those to be used by CSS for the VA contract here, which
are properly licensed, insured and registered with DOT, and that Ryder is
responsible for providing periodic maintenance, repair, licensing and safety
inspection. Declaration of Ryder Customer Development Manager, June 7,
2002; Ryder Truck Lease & Service Agreement. Although, as pointed out by
Hot Shot, CSS did not possess a DOT motor carrier identification number at
the time of award, the Ryder manager's declaration indicates that the trucks
delivered by Ryder to Crown companies are listed under Ryder's DOT
registration number until the Crown company is ready to operate them under
its own registration number. That is what happened here--while CSS did not
have its own license as of the April 1 start date for the contract, it did
obtain its own license on May 7. DOT Motor Carrier Identification No. USDOT
1023884, May 7, 2002.
In addition, CSS's proposal described significant transportation experience,
primarily associated with laundry. CSS included in its proposal a general
description of the Crown companies' numerous prior government contracts for
a wide variety of services, many of them related to laundry services and
equipment, and of its commercial healthcare laundry service business, which
serves 25 hospitals and over 175 clinics and medical offices in several
states from a plant in Florida, and involves the transportation of a
significant volume of laundry. CSS Past Performance Proposal at 2-5. In
addition, the proposal cited five current contracts for which references
could be contacted: a large contract with the VA medical center in
St. Albans, New York for transporting laundry to various facilities in New
York and New Jersey, performed by Crown National Services, Inc., a
wholly?owned subsidiary of Crown Management Services; three contracts with
Mississippi hospitals for the pick?up, processing and return of linen,
performed by Crown Healthcare Laundry Services; and a large contract to
purchase, receive, inventory, warehouse and issue linen at five hospitals in
Florida, performed by Crown Healthcare Laundry Services. Performance
evaluations were returned for three of the cited contracts (the St. Albans
contract and two of the Mississippi contracts); all of the references rated
the overall performance as superior, the highest rating. Id. at 18-22; CSS
References.
In summary, the record available to the agency indicated that CSS was part
of a family of wholly?owned subsidiaries and closely-held affiliates with
interlocking officers and boards of directors; that the parent company,
Crown Management Services, was involved in the performance of its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and would have significant involvement in
performance of CSS's contract here; and that key personnel from Crown
Healthcare Laundry Services also held key positions in CSS. VA thus could
properly attribute the transportation services experience and past
performance of the Crown companies, including that of Crown National
Services, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crown Management Services, and Crown
Healthcare Laundry Services, to CSS. Further, CSS's proposal explained
where it would obtain vehicles to perform the contract. In these
circumstances, there is no basis for questioning the award.
Hot Shot challenges the evaluation of its own proposal under the
technical/offeror's capabilities factor, questioning several of the concerns
expressed on the evaluators' worksheets. In addition, Hot Shot generally
asserts that its proposal was unfairly evaluated under the past performance
factor.
We will not sustain a protest unless the protester demonstrates a reasonable
possibility of prejudice, that is, unless the protester demonstrates that,
but for the agency's actions, it would have had a substantial chance of
receiving the award. Parmatic Filter Corp., B-285288.3, B-285288.4, Mar. 30,
2001, 2001 CPD � 71 at 11; see Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F. 3d
1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, as noted above, CSS's price was lower
than Hot Shot's; as a result, even if Hot Shot's proposal received the
maximum point score under the technical/offeror's capabilities and past
performance factors, its total score (including price) would be only 196
points, still lower than CSS's score. Since any deficiency in the
evaluation of Hot Shot's proposal therefore would not affect the award
decision, there was no resulting prejudice to Hot Shot.[1]
Hot Shot also argues that the agency improperly extended the closing date
for receipt of initial proposals. Under our Bid Protest Regulations,
protests based on such alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed
prior to the closing time for receipt of initial proposals. 4 C.F.R.
� 21.2(a)(1). This argument, first raised with the agency after award,
therefore is untimely and will not be considered.
Hot Shot asserts that its debriefing from the agency was inadequate. We will
not review a protest against the adequacy of a debriefing, since it is a
procedural matter that does not affect the validity of the award. DePonte
Invs., Inc., B-288871, B?288871.2, Nov. 26, 2001, 2002 CPD � 9 at 3 n.2.
The protest is denied.
Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel
-------------------------
[1] In any case, our review of the record supports the agency's
determination that CSS's proposal offered a number of significant strengths
relative to Hot Shot's proposal in the technical/offeror's capability area,
and a record of superior, relevant past performance (through the past
performance of affiliated Crown companies reasonably attributed to CSS).