Matter of:Good Food Services, Inc. File: B-244528.3 Date: December 30, 1992

B-244528.3: Dec 30, 1992

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Protest timeliness 10-day rule Where General Accounting Office (GAO) sustained protest on basis that protester's proposal was misevaluated. GAO will not consider awardee's subsequent protest that original protester could not meet solicitation's experience requirement. Since this argument should have been raised during consideration of the initial protest. Concluded that Son's was entitled to the award. Now asserts that the award to Son's was improper because Son's does not have the experience required by the RFP. The firm should have at least three years experience in the food service field.". Good Food notes that most of the experience listed in Son's proposal was in mess attendant services rather than full food service.

Matter of:Good Food Services, Inc. File: B-244528.3 Date: December 30, 1992

PROCUREMENT Bid Protests GAO procedures Protest timeliness 10-day rule Where General Accounting Office (GAO) sustained protest on basis that protester's proposal was misevaluated, GAO will not consider awardee's subsequent protest that original protester could not meet solicitation's experience requirement, since this argument should have been raised during consideration of the initial protest.

Attorneys

DECISION Good Food Services, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Son's Quality Food Company under request for proposals (RFP) No. F49642-91 -R-0502, issued by the Department of the Air Force for food services at Bolling Air Force Base (AFB). Good Food contends that the Air Force misevaluated the proposals by awarding Son's inflated scores under the most important evaluation factors.

We dismiss the protest.

This protest follows an earlier protest by Son's challenging the Air Force's decision to award the contract to Good Food. We sustained Son's protest, finding that the Air Force had misevaluated Son's proposal and failed to conduct adequate discussions with the firm. We recommended that the Air Force reopen negotiations with Son's and Good Food, and then reevaluate their proposals. Son's Quality Food Co., B-244528.2, Nov. 4, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 424. The Air Force followed our recommendation, and concluded that Son's was entitled to the award; Good Food then filed this protest.

Good Food, which did not enter an appearance as an interested party during Son's protest, now asserts that the award to Son's was improper because Son's does not have the experience required by the RFP. In this regard, section L.16(c) of the RFP required that offerors:

"Provide detailed evidence that the firm has the capability to provide full food service. The firm should have at least three years experience in the food service field."

Good Food notes that most of the experience listed in Son's proposal was in mess attendant services rather than full food service, and that the only full food service contracts listed are less than 2 years old. Good Food concludes that Son's proposal was misevaluated and that the firm is not eligible for the award because it does not have at least 3 years experience in full food service.

We will not consider this argument. Our Bid Protest Regulations provide interested parties the opportunity to participate in the protest process, thus ensuring that our decision on the matter will address all relevant information and issues. See 4 C.F.R. Secs. 21.0(b) and 21.3(a) (1992); Woodington Corp.--Recon., B-235957.2, Nov. 15, 1989, 89-2 CPD Para. 461. Accordingly, interested parties are expected to exercise due diligence in presenting their respective positions during the protest process. See Techniarts Eng'g, B-238520.5; B-238520.6, Dec. 31, 1991, 92-1 CPD Para. 20. They may not present available information in a piecemeal fashion through the filing of a separate protest after resolution of the first protest. Id.

The issue of Son's experience was fully developed in the record of the initial protest, in which Son's had questioned the agency's evaluation of its experience and argued that it had substantial relevant experience. Although Good Food did not submit its views as an interested party to the protest, it had the opportunity to do so. In particular, Good Food had the opportunity to rebut Son's position regarding the agency's evaluation of its experience, and to argue that Son's could not meet the 3-year experience requirement. Nor did Good Food request reconsideration of our decision, in which we found that the Air Force had improperly downgraded Son's proposal u evaluation factor. But cf. St. Patrick Hospital--Recon., B-242396.2, July 3, 1991, 91-2 CPD Para. 17 (contractor adversely affected by GAO decision is not eligible to request reconsideration where the firm was aware of the original protest but did not participate in the protest proceedings). Failure to make all arguments or submit all information available during the course of the initial protest undermines the goals of our bid protest process to produce fair and equitable decisions based on consideration of all parties' arguments on a fully developed record. See Techniarts Eng'g, supra. In view of Good Food's failure to exercise due diligence in raising its challenge to Son's compliance with the food service experience requirement, we will not consider this argument. Id.

The protest is dismissed.

Dec 4, 2020

Dec 3, 2020

Dec 2, 2020

Dec 1, 2020

Looking for more? Browse all our products here