B-216339, JAN 14, 1985, 85-1 CPD 37
Highlights
CFM CONTENDS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE CONTRACT AS THE OFFEROR PROPOSING THE LOWEST MANAGEMENT FEE. THE SOLICITATION REQUIRED OFFERORS TO ESTIMATE THEIR PERSONNEL AND MATERIALS COSTS AND PROVIDED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TOTAL FOOD COSTS AND INCOME FROM THE FOOD SERVICES IF ANY PARTICULAR OFFEROR WAS THE CONTRACTOR. IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT INTENDED TO EVALUATE THIS INFORMATION. OFFERORS WERE ADVISED THAT THE DISTRICT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL. BASED ON THE FORMAT UNDER WHICH PROPOSALS WERE INVITED. THE COMPLAINT IS DENIED.
B-216339, JAN 14, 1985, 85-1 CPD 37
CONTRACTS - PROTESTS - MERITS DIGEST: COMPLAINT THAT GRANTEE FAILED TO AWARD A FOOD MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT TO THE FIRM OFFERING THE LOWEST MANAGEMENT FEE HAS TO MERIT WHERE THE SOLICITATION REQUESTED INFORMATION REGARDING OTHER FACTORS AND PROVIDED FOR THE EVALUATION OF SUCH FACTORS AND POSSIBLE NEGOTIATION AND THUS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THAT AWARD WOULD BE BASED ON MANAGEMENT FEE ALONE.
CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT CO.:
CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT CO. (CFM) COMPLAINS THAT TAHOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 409, MAPLE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, FAILED TO AWARD IT A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE FOOD MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE DISTRICT. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIVES FUNDS FOR ITS LUNCH PROGRAM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNDER THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. SECS. 1751- 1769(C) (1982). CFM CONTENDS THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE CONTRACT AS THE OFFEROR PROPOSING THE LOWEST MANAGEMENT FEE. CFM COMPLAINS THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT EVALUATED A HOST OF OTHER FACTORS IN DECIDING TO AWARD ANOTHER OFFEROR THE CONTRACT.
WE DENY THE COMPLAINT.
THE SOLICITATION CLEARLY DID NOT CONTEMPLATE AWARD BASED ON THE LOWEST OFFERED MANAGEMENT FEES. IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING OFFERS OF A MANAGEMENT FEE, THE SOLICITATION REQUIRED OFFERORS TO ESTIMATE THEIR PERSONNEL AND MATERIALS COSTS AND PROVIDED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TOTAL FOOD COSTS AND INCOME FROM THE FOOD SERVICES IF ANY PARTICULAR OFFEROR WAS THE CONTRACTOR. IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE DISTRICT INTENDED TO EVALUATE THIS INFORMATION. THE SOLICITATION ALSO REQUIRED EACH OFFEROR TO SUBMIT FOR THE DISTRICT'S EVALUATION INFORMATION CONCERNING ITS EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, AND MANAGEMENT. FURTHERMORE, OFFERORS WERE ADVISED THAT THE DISTRICT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS PROPOSAL. THESE PROVISIONS SIMPLY PRECLUDE REASONABLY INTERPRETING THE SOLICITATION AS ESTABLISHING THAT THE LOWEST OFFERED MANAGEMENT FEE WOULD BE THE SOLE SELECTION CRITERION. CONSOLIDATED FOOD MANAGEMENT CO., B-215692, OCT. 24, 1984, 84-2 CPD PARA. 462.
THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE DISTRICT'S SELECTION FOLLOWED A COMPLETE EVALUATION, BASED ON THE FORMAT UNDER WHICH PROPOSALS WERE INVITED, OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE OFFERS RECEIVED. THE RECORD THUS PROVIDES NO BASIS TO QUESTION THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DISTRICT'S DECISION.
THE COMPLAINT IS DENIED.