HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaocrptapil0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
G A 0 Comptroller General
SIntegrity Reliability of the United States
~ccountabthty Inert Rea iy
United States Government Accountability Office DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Washington, DC 20548 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-292893.2
Date: June 30, 2004
Ira E. Hoffman, Esq., Mark R. Mann, Esq., and James A. McMillan, Esq., Grayson,
Kubli & Hoffman, for the protester.
Capt. Richard M. Sudder II, Department of the Army, for the agency.
Katherine I. Riback, Esq., and David A. Ashen, Esq., Office of the General Counsel,
GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision.
DIGEST
Protest against evaluation of revised proposals, undertaken after negotiations were
opened as part of corrective action following initial award to protester, is denied
where agency reasonably determined that as a result of changes in the current
awardee's revised proposal, the proposal warranted a higher rating than it received
in the first evaluation.
DECISION
Command Management Services, Inc. (CMS) protests the Department of the Army's
award of a contract to the Hilton Garden Inn (HGI), under request for proposals
(RFP) No. DABK21-03-R-0036, for meals, lodging, and transportation for applicants
arriving for processing at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in New
York City, New York. CMS primarily argues that the agency improperly evaluated
the awardee's proposal in a number of areas.
We deny the protest.
The RFP, a commercial acquisition using a combination of [Federal Acquisition
Regulation parts] 12 & 15, provided for award of a fixed-price requirements
contract, for a base period with four 1-year option periods, to the offeror whose
proposal was most advantageous to the government. Amend. 2. Determination of
the most advantageous proposal was to be based on five evaluation factors:
(1) facility quality, including subfactors for sanitation and cleanliness, room
condition, meals, security, special features, and facility location; (2) transportation;
(3) quality control; (4) past performance; and (5) price. Among the non-cost factors,
facility quality was more important than transportation, which was more important](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaocrptapil0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)