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.