TITLE:  Marriott Downtown, B-294594, November 8, 2004
BNUMBER:  B-294594
DATE:  November 8, 2004
**********************************************************************
   Decision

   Matter of:   Marriott Downtown

   File:            B-294594

   Date:           November 8, 2004

   Phillip E. Johnson, Federal Contract Specialists, Inc., for the protester.

   Capt. Eugene Y. Kim, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Kenneth Kilgour and Christine S. Melody, Esq., Office of the General
Counsel, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of proposal evaluation and source selection is denied where record
shows evaluation and award decision were reasonable and consistent with
solicitation's evaluation terms and applicable procurement rules.

   DECISION

   Marriott Downtown protests the award of a contract to CMS-Radisson Hotel
Memphis Airport by the Department of the Army under request for proposals
(RFP) No. W912D-04-R-0007, issued to procure meals, lodging, and
transportation for armed forces applicants at the Military Entrance
Processing Station (MEPS) in Memphis, Tennessee.  Marriott argues that the
selection of CMS-Radisson*s proposal was unreasonable.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP, a commercial acquisition using a combination of Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) parts 12, 13, 14 and 15, provided for award
of a fixed-price requirements contract, for a base year period with four
1-year options, to the offeror whose proposal was most advantageous to the
government.  The RFP required that offerors submit a technical/quality
proposal as well as a separate cost/price proposal.  The RFP advised that
offers would be evaluated on four factors:  facility quality/quality
control, past performance, transportation, and cost/price.  The first
factor, facility quality/quality control, included sanitation and
cleanliness, room condition, meals, security, special features, facility
location, and quality control.  The RFP also advised that the non-cost
factors were more important than cost or price, and that among the
non-cost factors facility quality/quality control was more important than
past performance, which was more important than transportation.

   In response, the agency received nine proposals, including one from an
offeror whose facility was closed for business and therefore was not
considered further.  The original evaluation team reviewed the eight other
proposals and conducted
on-site visits, and a contract was awarded to CMS-Radisson.  Marriott
Downtown protested the award, contending that its offer had not been
properly evaluated.  The contracting officer subsequently terminated
CMS-Radisson*s contract, amended the solicitation to provide for a date
for new on-site evaluations, and assembled a new evaluation team to review
the proposals and to conduct the site visits, in order to make a new
source selection decision.[1]  As a result of the agency*s action, we
dismissed the protest. 

   After reviewing the proposals and conducting on-site evaluations, the
second evaluation team rated the proposals of Marriott Downtown and
offeror A as excellent; CMS-Radisson and offerors B, C, and D as good;
offeror E as satisfactory; and offeror F as marginal.  The contracting
officer established a competitive range consisting of the six offers rated
excellent or good, including those from Marriott Downtown and
CMS-Radisson.  Detailed weaknesses/deficiencies were communicated to those
offerors.  The agency*s main concern with Marriott*s proposal was the
facility*s proximity to Beale Street, which features nightclubs, bars, and
other late-night tourist attractions.  The agency*s main concerns with the
CMS-Radisson proposal were deficiencies in cleanliness and quality control
noted by the second evaluation team.

   Amendment 0002 was issued on July 6 requesting final revisions and/or
pricing changes.  Five of the six offerors in the competitive range
submitted revised proposals,[2] and based on the revised submissions, the
contracting officer rated each of the remaining proposals as excellent and
awarded the contract to CMS-Radisson.  In conducting the price/technical
tradeoff analysis, the contracting officer determined that the proposal
offered by CMS-Radisson provided the best value to the government, because
it was priced $81,147.58 less than any other offer over the possible
5-year life of the contract.  The contracting officer determined that any
slight difference in quality among the offers was not worth the price
premium.

   Marriott Downtown challenges the technical evaluations of its own and
CMS-Radisson*s proposals and argues that the agency*s selection decision
was unreasonable.  In reviewing challenges to an agency*s evaluation of
proposals, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency
regarding the merits of proposals.  We will examine the agency*s
evaluation to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the
solicitation*s evaluation criteria, and with procurement statutes and
regulations.  M-Cubed Info. Sys., Inc., B-284445, B-284445.2, Apr. 19,
2000, 2000 CPD P 74 at 5.  A protestor*s mere disagreement with the
agency*s judgment is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted
unreasonably.  Command Mgmt. Servs., Inc., B-292893.2, June 30, 2004, 2004
CPD P 168 at 3.  Based on our review of the record, we find the evaluation
of the proposals, and the selection of CMS-Radisson*s proposal as offering
the best value, to be reasonable.

   Marriott Downtown identifies four distinctions between it and the Radisson
hotel that, Marriott argues, demonstrate the superiority of its facility
and warrant award to Marriott despite its higher price:  the airport noise
at the Radisson; traffic congestion; the allegedly unsafe neighborhood
around the Radisson; and Marriott*s special features, including an indoor
pool and a large fitness center.  We discuss each of these factors in
turn.                      

   The Radisson hotel offered by the awardee is located at Memphis
International Airport.  In support of its argument regarding airport
noise, Marriott has produced flight records that appear to establish that
the airport is a busy transportation hub with a high volume of nighttime
air traffic.  While the agency does not dispute the frequency of nighttime
takeoffs and landings, the contracting officer states that flight noise
was not noticeable during daytime visits to the hotel.  The contracting
officer also states that, after checking with the Memphis MEPS, she is not
aware of any noise complaints from any of the applicants staying at the
Radisson, and the evaluation teams made no mention of noise disturbances. 
Other than its speculation that such a large number of nighttime arrivals
and departures produces sufficient noise to disturb guests at the
Radisson, Marriott Downtown simply has not offered any evidence to support
its position.  At most, Marriott*s argument reflects its disagreement with
the agency*s judgment regarding the impact of flight noise at the
Radisson, which is not sufficient to show that the agency acted
unreasonably in not downgrading CMS-Radisson*s proposal based on the
hotel*s proximity to the airport.  Language Serv. Assocs., Inc., B-293041,
Dec. 22, 2003, 2004 CPD P 6 at 5.

   The protestor also asserts that, in prior procurements, hotels outside a
9-mile radius from the MEPS have been rejected due to transportation costs
and concerns about traffic congestion.[3]  The protester questions why the
evaluators did not similarly downgrade the awardee*s proposal here, given
that the Radisson is located over
10 miles from the MEPS.  In comparison, the Marriott is located less than
2 miles from the MEPS.  Given that the applicants will be transported
between the contract hotel and the MEPS at approximately 5 a.m., the
contracting officer anticipates minimal or no traffic congestion and
estimates that the time saved by transporting applicants from the Marriott
rather than the Radisson would likely be just a few minutes.  In view of
the contracting officer*s reasoned explanation, we see no basis to
question her decision not to downgrade the awardee*s proposal based on the
Radisson*s distance from the MEPS.

   Marriott Downtown offered crime statistics that it asserted showed that
the Marriott was in a safer neighborhood than the Radisson and questioned
the Radisson*s security.  The record shows that the contracting officer
reviewed in some detail the security measures in place at the Radisson,
including video surveillance cameras, a 24-hour manager, uniformed
security guards, and on-site regional airport security.  In addition, the
contracting officer spoke with the Director of Public Safety at the
airport and was told that instances of crime at the airport are *extremely
rare,* although the airport lies within a reporting area that, as a whole,
experiences a higher crime rate than the airport.  The contracting officer
reports that the Radisson has ample surface parking for MEPS applicants
and that the entire facility is surrounded by a fence, set back
approximately 300 feet.  The contracting officer*s evaluation of the
relative safety and security of the competing facilities was reasonable
and consistent with the solicitation*s evaluation criteria, and we will
not substitute our judgment for that of the agency regarding the merits of
the proposals in this regard.  M-Cubed Info. Sys., Inc., supra.

   Finally, Marriott Downtown argues that its year-round pool and
better-equipped fitness center, along with concierge service and a gift
shop, make its facility one of obviously higher quality than the Radisson
and that the contracting officer failed to properly consider the
Marriott*s superiority.  We disagree.  In fact, the record clearly shows
that the agency took the positive features of the protester*s facility
into account in arriving at its overall excellent rating, specifically
considering how the Marriott*s amenities mitigated the government*s
greatest concern about that proposal, namely, the proximity of the
Marriott to Memphis nightlife.

   Where selection officials reasonably regard proposals as being essentially
equal technically, price can be a determining factor in making an award,
notwithstanding that the evaluation criteria assigned price less
importance than technical factors.  Language Serv. Assocs., Inc., supra,
at 4.   Here, both proposals received overall ratings of excellent, and
the contracting officer concluded that any slight difference in quality
did not warrant paying the price premium associated with the protester*s
proposal.  Given that the record supports the reasonableness of the
contracting officer*s findings, we see no basis to object to selection of
CMS-Radisson*s equally-rated, lower-priced proposal.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa
General Counsel

   ------------------------

   [1] The agency reports that the contracting officer decided to take
corrective action after learning that a MEPS employee (who had served on
the source selection team) had inquired about the hiring procedures of CMS
during the Radisson inspection and requested an employment application for
his wife the day after the contract was awarded to CMS-Radisson.

   [2] Offeror C withdrew its offer from further consideration.

   [3] In support of its position, the protester cites Treadway Inn,
B-221559, Mar. 10, 1986, 86-1 CPD P 236, aff*d, B-221559.2, July 31, 1986,
86-2 P 130.  In that case, the incumbent contractor, whose facility was
located over 20 miles from the MEPS, challenged a provision in the
solicitation restricting the competition to facilities within a 5-mile
radius of the MEPS.  We denied the challenge to the geographic
restriction, finding reasonable the agency*s position that, because the
highway connecting the incumbent*s facility to the MEPS was under repair,
applicants were experiencing excessive travel times and abnormally
hazardous conditions.  In contrast here, the solicitation does not contain
a geographic restriction; moreover, there is no evidence that any similar
factors -- excessive travel time or hazardous travel conditions -- are at
issue here.