TITLE: B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007
BNUMBER: B-310261; B-310261.2
DATE: December 14, 2007
**************************************************************************
B-310261; B-310261.2, Command Management Services, Inc., December 14, 2007

   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: Command Management Services, Inc.

   File: B-310261; B-310261.2

   Date: December 14, 2007

   Alan M. Grayson Esq., Victor Kubli, Esq., and Paula K. Goldman, Esq.,
   Grayson & Kubli, PC, for the protester.

   Thomas P. Sayer, Jr., Esq., for LAX Hospitality, LP, an intervenor.

   Maj. Carla T. Peters, Department of the Army, for the agency.

   Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and James Spangenberg, Esq., Office of the General
   Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.

   DIGEST

   1. Protest challenging agency's evaluation of technical proposals is
   denied where the record establishes that the evaluation was reasonable and
   consistent with the evaluation criteria.

   2. Agency reasonably found that discrepancy in name of entity appearing in
   the proposal was a mere clerical error where the differences in the name
   from the entity to which award was made are minor and the data universal
   numbering system number and address matched that of the entity which
   received the award.

   DECISION

   Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) protests the award of a contract
   to LAX Hospitality, LP by the Department of the Army, under request for
   proposals (RFP) No. W9124D-07-R-0036, for meals and lodging for armed
   forces applicants at the Los Angeles Military Entrance Processing Station.

   We deny the protest.

   The RFP was issued on April 28, 2007 as a commercial item acquisition. It
   sought proposals for the furnishing of facilities, furniture, equipment,
   supplies, management, supervision and labor to provide lodging
   accommodations, meal services and transportation services for armed forces
   and/or government agency applicant processing. The solicitation
   contemplated award of a fixed-price requirements contract for a base year
   with four 1-year options.

   Award was to be made on a "best value" basis considering the evaluation
   factors identified in the RFP. The RFP provided that proposals would be
   evaluated considering cost/price and the following non-cost factors listed
   in descending order of importance: facility quality/quality control, past
   performance, and transportation. The facility quality/quality control
   factor had seven equally important subfactors: sanitation and cleanliness,
   room/facility condition, meals, security, special features, facility
   location, and quality control. The combined weight of the non-cost factors
   was significantly more important than cost/price.

   Six proposals, including LAX's and CMS's, were received in response to the
   solicitation, but two were withdrawn. The remaining four written proposals
   were reviewed by the source selection evaluation board (SSEB), which then
   conducted an on-site visit of each offered facility on August 7th and 8th.
   Agency Report (AR) at 4. Based on its evaluation of the written proposals
   and the on-site visits, the SSEB produced written narratives that
   described the relative strengths and weaknesses of each proposal under
   each evaluation factor and subfactor, and assigned one of the following
   adjectival ratings:

     Excellent: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate excellent
     understanding of requirements and approach that significantly exceeds
     performance or capability standards. Has exceptional strengths, with few
     or no weaknesses, that will significantly benefit the Government. On
     site evaluation confirms written proposal.

     Good: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate good
     understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or
     capability standards. Has one or more strengths that will benefit the
     Government. Any weaknesses can be minimized with normal contractor
     efforts and normal Government monitoring.

     Satisfactory: Written proposal and on-site evaluation demonstrate
     minimal understanding of requirements and approach that meets
     performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an acceptable
     solution, but has few strengths. Any weaknesses can be minimized, but
     confirms the necessity of special contractor emphasis and close
     Government monitoring necessary to minimize difficulties.

   RFP at 13.[1]

   LAX's and CMS's proposals both received an overall technical evaluation
   rating of excellent; the other two proposals received lower ratings. LAX's
   proposal received an excellent rating for facility quality/quality
   control, with four excellent and three good subfactor ratings, an
   excellent rating for past performance, and a good rating for
   transportation. CMS's proposal also received an excellent rating for
   facility quality/quality control, also with four excellent and three good
   subfactor ratings, an excellent rating for past performance, and a good
   rating for transportation. Without consideration of price, the SSEB
   recommended LAX as its first choice for award and CMS as its second
   choice. Agency Report, Tab 10, SSEB Report.

   After receiving the recommendation from the SSEB, the contracting officer
   (who was the source selection official) conducted a price/technical
   trade-off. In this decision, the contracting officer adopted the SSEB
   report, explained why the proposal of LAX should be rated excellent, and
   determined that LAX's proposal priced at $9,619,436.50 offered the best
   value to the Government, given that it was essentially technically equal
   to CMS's excellent proposal which was priced at $11,153,737.48.
   Contracting Officer's Statement at 10; AR, Tab 13, Source Selection
   Decision, at 8. Award was made to LAX on August 29. After a debriefing,
   this protest followed on September 10.

   CMS asserts that the agency's evaluation of the proposals was improper and
   unreasonable. It argues that the agency failed to evaluate proposals in
   accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and failed to apply the
   evaluation factors "consistently across all offerors." [2] Protester's
   Comments at 4-12.

   In reviewing an agency's evaluation, we will not reevaluate technical
   proposals; instead, we will examine the agency's evaluation to ensure that
   it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation's stated evaluation
   criteria and applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Al Hamra
   Kuwait Co., B-288970, Dec. 26, 2001, 2001 CPD para. 208 at 2. A
   protester's mere disagreement with the evaluation provides no basis to
   question the reasonableness of the evaluators' judgments. Citywide
   Managing Servs. of Port Washington, Inc., B-281287.12, B-281287.13,
   Nov. 15, 2000, 2001 CPD para. 6 at 10.

   Specifically, CMS contends that LAX's proposal should have received either
   a marginal or satisfactory rating, rather than a good rating, for the
   sanitation and cleanliness and quality control subfactors because the
   agency recognized that its written proposal failed to thoroughly address
   its plan to meet these requirements and the agency placed undue weight on
   the on-site visit to discount these concerns, which was not in accordance
   with the RFP's evaluation scheme. However, contrary to CMS's suggestion,
   as indicated in the definitions of the adjectival ratings included in the
   solicitation (quoted above), the RFP did not require evaluators to rate
   the factors and subfactors based only upon an offeror's written proposal
   and to only use the on-site visit for mere verification purposes; to the
   contrary, the RFP expressly contemplated that adjectival ratings would be
   based upon both an evaluation of the written proposals and the on-site
   visits. [3] RFP at 13. Here, the SSEB and the contracting officer
   expressly recognized that LAX's proposal "included limited information
   concerning standards for sanitation and cleanliness" and that the "quality
   control plan . . . was limited in detail," but, based on the "very good"
   sanitation and cleanliness and quality control found at the facility
   during the on-site visits, CMS's proposal was considered good under these
   subfactors.[4] AR, Tab 10, SSEB Report, at 4; Tab 13, Source Selection
   Decision, at 5. We have no basis to find this judgment unreasonable.

   CMS similarly contends LAX's proposal's excellent ratings for the security
   subfactor and the past performance factor were unjustified, given the lack
   of detail regarding these matters in its proposal, and argues that the
   agency failed to apply the evaluation factors "consistently" between the
   proposals, given that its proposal, which contained the requisite details,
   also received excellent ratings for this factor and subfactor. CMS also
   claims that other subfactor ratings were also inconsistently applied
   because its proposal received the same rating as LAX's proposal for these
   subfactors, even though its proposal had fewer weaknesses.

   The evaluation of proposals and assignment of adjectival ratings should
   generally not be based upon a simple count of strengths and weaknesses,
   but on a qualitative assessment of the proposals consistent with the
   evaluation scheme; thus, to the extent that CMS's arguments are based on
   merely counting weaknesses, they do not provide a basis to challenge the
   reasonableness of the evaluation. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc.,
   B-298694.7, June 22, 2007, 2007 CPD para. 124 at 5. In any case, since
   adjectival scores are merely guides for intelligent decision making in the
   procurement process, they do not necessarily mandate selection of a
   particular proposal for award. KBM Group, Inc., B-281919, B-281919.2, May
   3, 1999, 99-1 CPD para. 118 at 11. The more important consideration is
   whether the evaluation record and source selection decision show that the
   agency reasonably assessed the relative merits of the proposals in
   accordance with the stated evaluation criteria. Id.

   Here, while the SSEB's consensus rating sheet for LAX's security subfactor
   stated, "security plan limited in detail," AR, Tab 12, SSEB Consensus
   Evaluation Sheet, Security Subfactor, this weakness was not identified in
   the subsequent SSEB Report or the Source Selection Document. In fact, the
   SSEB Report and Source Selection Document identified specific and
   reasonable rationales for why it was determined that LAX's security was
   regarded as excellent with no weaknesses. For example, the narratives
   commend LAX's security as, "providing [redacted] roving house security
   officers," "security is provided on a 24 hour, 7 day per week, basis," and
   "the hotel offers [redacted] recording and monitored security cameras that
   are located throughout the entire property." AR, Tab 10, SSEB Report, at
   4; Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 5. Based upon our review of the
   record, we find this documented evaluation to be reasonable.

   Furthermore, while it is true that the source selection document noted
   that LAX's proposal had limited past performance information, the SSEB and
   contracting officer concluded nonetheless that LAX's past performance was
   excellent because the past performance information that LAX did provide
   showed successful performance that was relevant in scope and size, and
   that LAX's proposed general manager and other staff members successfully
   served at the facility that previously provided these services. AR, Tab
   13, Source Selection Decision, at 5. We find the agency has provided
   reasonable support for its past performance rating.

   The agency's source selection decision document specifically discussed the
   multiple strengths in, and aspects of, LAX's proposal that established why
   it was rated excellent. In so doing, the decision addressed the concerns
   regarding a lack of detail, recognizing that "[LAX's] proposal was
   somewhat limited in detail," but concluding that LAX had provided
   "sufficient information to determine it understands the requirement." AR,
   Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 8. Based on our review, we find the
   source selection reasonable and in accordance with the RFP's evaluation
   scheme.

   Finally, CMS asserts in a supplemental protest that the agency's award to
   LAX was improper because the awardee ("LAX Hospitality LP, Radisson Inn")
   was not the entity that submitted the proposal upon which the award was
   based ("LAX Hospitality, LLC, DBA Radisson Hotel at Los Angeles Airport").
   In fact, CMS notes that the latter entity identified as submitting the
   proposal was not registered with Central Contractor Registration (CCR).

   It is true that a contract cannot be awarded to any entity other than the
   one which submitted the proposal. However, the name of an offeror need not
   be exactly the same in all of the offer documents; although, the offer
   documents or other information available must show that
   differently-identified offering entities are in fact the same legal
   entity. Al Hamra Kuwait Co., supra, at 3. The fact that an offeror has
   only one taxpayer identification number (TIN) or data universal numbering
   system (DUNS) number and only one address is often a reliable indicator of
   the offering entity. S^3 LTD, B- 288195 et al., Sept. 10, 2001, 2001 CPD
   para. 164 at 11-12.

   The agency asserts that the difference in entity names was a mere clerical
   error. This discrepancy was discovered when the contracting officer's
   search of the DUNS number listed on the awardee's proposal, which
   indicated that the entity name identified for that DUNS number was LAX
   Hospitality LP, Radisson Inn. Upon discovering the discrepancy, the
   contracting officer contacted LAX, who confirmed that LAX Hospitality, LP
   was the name of the entity, not LAX Hospitality, LLC.[5] Supp. AR at 6.
   The contracting officer also noted that the address listed in the proposal
   and in the DUNS systems was that of LAX Hospitality, LP, which was
   registered with the CCR. Id. Therefore, we find that, notwithstanding the
   variations in the identification of the awardee between the proposal and
   award, the agency reasonably determined that LAX Hospitality, LP was the
   proper entity and was eligible to receive award.

   The protest is denied.

   Gary L. Kepplinger
   General Counsel

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

   [1] The marginal, unsatisfactory and neutral adjectival ratings also used
   in the evaluation are not at issue in this protest.

   [2] In its initial protest, CMS also contended that LAX was not
   responsible and should not have received an overall excellent rating
   because of certain alleged problems with LAX's facility and with another
   facility that was managed by LAX's proposed general manager and other
   proposed personnel. In its report, the agency addressed each of these
   allegations and the protester did not respond in its comments. As such, we
   consider these allegations to be abandoned. Dynamic Instruments, Inc.,
   B-291071, Oct. 10, 2002, 2002 CPD para. 183 at 4.

   [3] To the extent CMS argues that the SSEB's methodology in the evaluation
   of using on-site visits for more than verification of the written
   proposals was inconsistent with the agency's "evaluation team
   instructions," see AR, Tab 9, Evaluation Team Instructions, at 2, this
   does not provide a basis for questioning the validity of the evaluation or
   award selection, inasmuch as such plans are internal agency instructions
   and as such, do not give outside parties any rights. See Management Plus,
   Inc., B-265852, Dec. 29, 1995, 95-2 CPD para. 290 at 2 n.2.

   [4] The SSEB report, the text of which was substantially incorporated into
   the source selection document, documented the sanitation and cleanliness
   of the facility, which was "very clean," with only minor weaknesses, and
   that "it was apparent that quality control is being routinely performed as
   no major weaknesses were noted during the inspection." AR, Tab 10, SSEB
   Report, at 4; Tab 13, Source Selection Decision, at 5.

   [5] There is no evidence that there is any legal entity named LAX
   Hospitality, LLC.