TITLE: B-296616, Cattlemen's Meat Company, August 30, 2005
BNUMBER: B-296616
DATE: August 30, 2005
***************************************************
B-296616, Cattlemen's Meat Company, August 30, 2005

   Decision

   Matter of: Cattlemen's Meat Company

   File: B-296616

   Date: August 30, 2005

   Joseph Dirik, Esq., Jenkens & Gilchrist, for the protester.

   Clarence D. Long, III, Esq., Department of the Air Force, for the agency.

   Charles W. Morrow, Esq., and James A. Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the
   General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   Protest of agency's cancellation of solicitation for food services to
   instead perform the services in-house is denied where the protester's
   price submitted in response to the solicitation significantly exceeded the
   government estimate, which has not been shown to be other than realistic
   and fair.

   DECISION

   Cattlemen's Meat Company protests the Department of the Air Force's
   decision to perform food services for the Air Force Reserve Officer
   Training Corps (AFROTC) in-house rather than award a contract to
   Cattlemen's under request for proposals (RFP) No. FA4690-05-R-0021.

   We deny the protest.

   This protest concerns the acquisition of food services for two units of
   AFROTC cadets at Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) , South Dakota. For the
   previous 2 years, the requirement for food services to accommodate
   congressionally-mandated field training of AFROTC cadets held at Ellsworth
   AFB each summer had been provided in-house by the Air Force's 28^th SVS
   (Services) Squadron at the base's Bandit Dining Facility, or
   alternatively, in an "overflow situation," at the base's officer's club,
   the Dakota's, a nonappropriated fund instrumentality (NAFI).

   In 2005, the Air Force required food services for three encampments of
   AFROTC cadets, with the first encampment scheduled for May 19, the second
   scheduled for June 22, and the third scheduled for July 28. To satisfy the
   requirement, the Air Force decided to contract with the Dakota's. On March
   15, the Air Force published a notice of intent to award a food services
   contract on a sole-source basis to the Dakota's on the FedBizOpps (Federal
   Business Opportunities) Internet site. Cattlemen's protested the Air
   Force's decision to award a contract on a sole-source basis to the
   Dakota's rather than compete the requirement with commercial sources. To
   settle the protest, the Air Force agreed to conduct a competitive
   procurement for the second and third encampments, and provide Cattlemen's
   with the opportunity to compete for the requirement.

   As a result, on May 25, this RFP was issued for the two remaining
   encampments in 2005 as a commercial item acquisition pursuant to Federal
   Acquisition Regulation Part 12. In addition to requiring the contractor to
   provide a facility, equipment, personnel, supervision, and other items,
   and services necessary to provide the meals, and to meet certain quality
   assurance standards, the RFP's statement of work required that the
   "Contractor shall provide a hardened facility to provide an eating area
   for the Cadets." RFP, Statement of Work, at 7. The stated basis for award
   under the RFP was price.

   Since Cattlemen's was the only respondent to the FedBizOpps notice, and
   because the requirement was imminent, the Air Force only solicited
   Cattlemen's to submit a proposal in response to the RFP.[1] On June 7,
   Cattlemen's submitted a proposal to provide food services, at a cost of
   $571,638.60. The government estimate was $375,829.50, which represented a
   per-meal cost of $13.25 per day for meals served in the dining facility
   and $6 per day for MREs (meals ready to eat) served in the field plus
   $35,500 for a "hardened" facility. Because the protester's proposal price
   substantially exceeded the government estimate and available funding, the
   Air Force decided to again obtain AFROTC food services in-house from the
   28^th SVS squadron, rather than contracting commercially or with the
   Dakota's. The RFP was canceled and the AFROTC entered into a memorandum of
   agreement (MOA) with the 28^th SVS Squadron to provide these services at
   the same rate contained in the government estimate of $13.25 per person
   per day for serving in the facility and $6 per day for MREs. This protest
   from Cattlemen's followed.

   Cattlemen's challenges the Air Force's determination to obtain AFROTC
   meals in-house, asserting that the Air Force improperly evaluated its
   price against a flawed estimate of the government's costs. In this regard,
   Cattlemen's contends that it was required to meet certain requirements,
   such as the requirement for a hardened facility, electrical upgrades,
   quality assurance and training, that increased the costs of its proposal,
   but the same requirements were not included in the MOA between the AFROTC
   and the 28^th SVS Squadron. Cattlemen's maintains that these were
   unnecessary requirements that ensured that the Air Force would receive a
   higher price than the in-house estimate.

   In a negotiated procurement the agency has broad authority to decide
   whether to cancel the solicitation; there need be only a reasonable basis
   for the cancellation. VSE Corp., B-290452.2, Apr. 11, 2005, 2005 CPD para.
   111 at 6. However, where a solicitation issued by a Department of Defense
   activity is cancelled in order to obtain the solicited services in-house,
   the provisions contained in 10 U.S.C. sect. 2462(a) (2000) become
   relevant. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., Aero Corp., B-275587.9 et al., June 29,
   1998, 98-2 CPD para. 17 at 7-11. Under that statute, agencies in the
   Department of Defense are required to acquire goods or services from a
   private-sector source if the private-sector source can provide the
   requirement at a cost lower than the government can perform the service
   in-house. 10 U.S.C. sect. 2462(a). The statute also provides that in order
   to determine whether to contract with a private-sector source based on a
   comparison of costs, the agency must ensure that all costs considered
   (including the costs of quality assurance, technical monitoring of the
   performance of such function, liability insurance, employee retirement and
   disability benefits, and all other overhead costs) are realistic and fair.
   10 U.S.C. sect. 2462(b). Where an agency's cancellation of an RFP is
   inconsistent with 10 U.S.C. sect. 2462, there can be no reasonable basis
   for the cancellation. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., Aero Corp., supra, at 7.

   Here, the Air Force compared the protester's price to a government
   estimate of the costs incurred to provide AFROTC meals in-house, which
   estimate the Air Force reports was developed based on the government's
   experience providing meals for the 2004 encampments and the first
   encampment in 2005. Eighty-eight percent of the costs of meals represented
   expenses, which included 31 percent for the costs of goods sold, 29
   percent for labor, 6 percent for supplies (paper products, linens, plastic
   gloves, dishwashing soap) and 22 percent for other operating/depreciation
   expenses (utilities, rug runner rentals, equipment replacement). This
   resulted in an estimated cost of $13.25 per meal and $6.00 per MRE, which
   when multiplied by the estimated meals to be served during the encampments
   and by then adding in the costs of a "hardened" facility totaled
   $375,829.50. Contracting Officer's Statement at 3.

   Cattlemen's does not specifically assert that the government estimate was
   inconsistent with 10 U.S.C. sect. 2462, nor does it challenge the validity
   of any of the costs contained in the government estimate as understated.
   Instead, its protest focuses on the MOA between the Air Force and the
   28^th SVS Squadron, which did not specifically contain the requirement to
   provide a hardened facility or the quality assurance and training
   requirements, and asserts that this shows that the comparison of its
   proposal to the government estimate was unequal and improper.

   The Air Force indicates here, however, that an MOA, which is an internal
   Air Force document, would not necessarily state every requirement stated
   in the RFP's statement of work. In this regard, the Air Force advises that
   the Bandit Dining Facility where the 28^th SVS Squadron serves the meals
   is a hardened facility, and that the Squadron is required to observe the
   Air Force's own training and quality assurance requirements that are
   consistent with the RFP's Statement of Work requirements. As noted above,
   the estimate for the hardened facility is expressly included in the
   government estimate. Moreover, Cattlemen's has not rebutted the agency's
   explanation or shown that any incremental quality assurance and training
   costs are not included in the government estimate. In addition, the Air
   Force indicates that the requirement that a private-sector contractor
   provide its own hardened facility, including electrical capacity, was
   necessary because the Bandit Dining Facility is a military facility
   currently in use for other operations, such that a contractor cannot use
   them to satisfy these RFP requirements, and because the safety factors
   related to wind velocity exceeding 60 miles per hour, with gusts between
   80 and 90 miles per hour, in South Dakota require a hardened facility.
   Supplemental Agency Report at 1-2.

   Thus, the protester's reference to the omitted requirements in the MOA
   does not demonstrate that the government estimate was other than realistic
   and fair, or that the comparison of the estimate with the protester's
   proposal was unequal or improper. In addition, we note that Cattlemen's
   has not questioned any of the specific elements in the government estimate
   as understated, and on this record we have no basis to find that the
   estimate was other than realistic and fair. Under the circumstances, we
   believe the agency reasonably determined that the protester's proposed
   price, as compared to the government estimate, was excessive, and that the
   agency therefore had a reasonable basis to cancel the RFP in order to
   obtain the services in-house.

   The protest is denied.

   Anthony H. Gamboa

   General Counsel

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

   [1] While Cattlemen's asserts that the agency was obligated to make
   further efforts to obtain competition among commercial vendors, the fact
   is that Cattlemen's was provided an opportunity to and did submit a
   proposal in response to the RFP. Given this opportunity, we find that
   Cattlemen's is not an interested party eligible to protest the agency's
   failure to solicit additional commercial sources for this requirement. In
   order for a protest to be considered by our Office, a protester must be an
   interested party, which means it must have a direct economic interest in
   the resolution of a protest issue. Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. sect.
   21.0(a) (2005). This protest basis is essentially on behalf of other
   potential offerors that were not solicited, so that Cattlemen's lacks the
   requisite interest to advance the issue in this case. The Real Estate
   Ctr., B-271081.4, Feb. 24, 1997, 97-1 CPD para. 85 at 3.